jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: rename org.apache.jackrabbit.jcr -> org.apache.jackrabbit.rep
Date Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:02:29 GMT
David Nuescheler wrote:

> hi stefano,
> of course i agree with your statement about not having too many 
> irons in the fire.
> i think that jackrabbit should at least host some simple way
> way to interact with the repository from an end user's perspective. 
> in my mind these things include a web-based repository browser 
> and some sort of webdav connectivity.
> since these portions are not part of the "core repository" and are 
> operating as applications on top of the jsr-170 api, and also have 
> extended dependencies (eg. a servlet container) i would like to
> keep them seperately from the "core" repository.
> i think that an application should be able to use a the "jackrabbit core
> repository" as a simple .jar without the all the .war specific information, 
> while the combination with a servlet container is frequent enough to 
> create some simple generic web applications (of the type mentioned above) 
> to make people life easier, when it comes to deployment and usage of the
> repository.
> after all i would like to rephrase my earlier statement saying that 
> "jackrabbit is more than a repository" into "jackrabbit is a full-fledged 
> repository" [including obvious protocol bindings, the tck and possibly 
> a repository admin console;)]
> since i lost now track of what people's opinions are i would like to 
> re-iterate the obvious options that i see (please extend or correct).
> (a) leave as is: org.apache.jackrabbit.jcr[.core]
> (b) bump up to: org.apache.jackrabbit[.core]
> (c) org.apache.jackrabbit.repo
> since this involves quite a bit of refactoring i would like to make sure that 
> we have have a good consensus on that. to me it seems like option (b) has
> the consent of stefano, tim and (as per right now) myself, is that right?

I wouldn't mind "repo" too, but I'm fine with whatever the group decides.


View raw message