Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 52921 invoked by uid 500); 17 Apr 2003 15:36:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 52897 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2003 15:36:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pulse.betaversion.org) (217.158.110.65) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Apr 2003 15:36:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 23670 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2003 15:36:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO apache.org) (stefano@80.105.91.155) by pulse.betaversion.org with SMTP; 17 Apr 2003 15:36:38 -0000 Message-ID: <3E9ECA3C.2090207@apache.org> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:37:32 +0200 From: Stefano Mazzocchi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030412 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Apache Cocoon CC: David Nuescheler Subject: [Fwd: Re: JSR 170 vs. WebDAV] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------060300030007080708070601" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060300030007080708070601 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwared as it seems that it didn't come thru moderation. -- Stefano. --------------060300030007080708070601 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: JSR 170 vs. WebDAV" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Re: JSR 170 vs. WebDAV" Return-Path: X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0 Received: (qmail 22942 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2003 09:35:19 -0000 Delivered-To: betaversion-stefano@betaversion.org Received: (qmail 22938 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2003 09:35:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO icarus.apache.org) (208.185.179.13) by pulse.betaversion.org with SMTP; 16 Apr 2003 09:35:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 98063 invoked by uid 1010); 16 Apr 2003 09:35:02 -0000 Delivered-To: stefano@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 97982 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2003 09:34:59 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by icarus.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Apr 2003 09:34:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 39492 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2003 09:34:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stefano@apache.org Received: (qmail 39488 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2003 09:34:58 -0000 Received: from bsl-rtr.day.com (HELO picanmix.dev.day.com) (212.249.34.130) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Apr 2003 09:34:58 -0000 Received: from eu-mail.day.com (eu-mail.dev.day.com [10.0.0.30]) by picanmix.dev.day.com (DAY) with ESMTP id h3G9Z9822499; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:35:10 +0200 (MEST) Subject: Re: JSR 170 vs. WebDAV To: Stefano Mazzocchi Cc: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: david.nuescheler@day.com Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:35:11 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on eu-mail/Day(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 04/16/2003 11:35:08 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: icarus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N hi guys, thanks to stefano for letting me participate in the discussion. > and being myself a big > time supporter of WebDAV I would be very much interested in your opinion on > which needs a JSR 170 repository really fits better than a plain WebDAV > repository (a complete one with DeltaV, ACL and DASL). personally i couldn't agree more with stefano's statement that there is absolutely no sense of being competitive between jsr-170 and webdav. as stefano pointed out webdav as a protocol and jcr (jsr-170) is an API. i personally believe that the question if an API or protocol specification is more precise is very much a question of the quality of the spec itself rather than nature of the spec. (and of course we are trying our best) i believe the main difference is that an API spec (such as jsr-170) addresses the needs of application programmers, which in our case actually want to gain access to content without having to know about the transport protocol or the actual implementation of the repository ("which application programmer cares (or knows) about the protocol between a jdbc client and the server??"). because jsr-170 is also a mean of integrating and homogenizing exsting repositories it shall not suggest any implementation detail such as a (webdav, ...) network layer or a certain (fs or db centric, ...) backend implementation. [keep in mind there are repository implementations which run in the same vm as their clients (eg. in a servlet engine) so there is no network interaction at all.] currently there is a proposal in the "slide" project that we are using for the prototypes of the reference implementation, in which we are using the jsr-170 api on the client sitting on top of a webdav transport layer. i personally see the webdav protocol as a very adaequate, standardized network layer for content repository-servers and clients to talk over the wire while using javax.jcr as the api for the application developer. (or to come back to the question: "i hope that jsr-170 repositories at the same time also are (complete) webdav repositories and vice versa") regards, david --------------060300030007080708070601--