Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-jackrabbit-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 50851 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2005 11:19:26 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Jul 2005 11:19:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 5612 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jul 2005 11:19:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jackrabbit-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 5599 invoked by uid 99); 20 Jul 2005 11:19:25 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:19:25 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [213.185.42.161] (HELO grotti.greywolves.org) (213.185.42.161) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:19:21 -0700 Received: (qmail 97570 invoked by uid 103); 20 Jul 2005 11:19:22 -0000 Received: from ip213-185-42-165.laajakaista.mtv3.fi (HELO [213.185.42.165]) (213.185.42.165) by grotti.greywolves.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:19:21 +0300 Message-ID: <42DE3338.2070309@zitting.name> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:19:20 +0300 From: Jukka Zitting User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.3.3 (X11/20050513) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Open Source Content Browser References: <42DA0F27.8010003@wyona.com> <42DE31D8.2060704@wyona.com> In-Reply-To: <42DE31D8.2060704@wyona.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi, Michael Wechner wrote: > David Nuescheler wrote: >> i seriously think that the client app (content browser) should >> be independent of the transport layer and just use jcr to >> interact with the repository. > > you mean by using jcr-rmi? I think David suggested that the browser application should use JNDI or some other mechanism to get a reference to the JCR Repository interface and use the standard JCR methods to access the repository. This way the application could easily be deployed using any of the available deployment models. It could either directly access an in-process Jackrabbit or another JCR implementation, or use JCR-RMI or the Webdav layer to access a remote repository. The choise of a transport layer and even whether to use one should be a deployment, not development issue. BR, Jukka Zitting