jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Less flexibility
Date Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:43:06 GMT
Hi,

On 6/29/07, Felix Meschberger <Felix.Meschberger@day.com> wrote:
> Yet, another problem you are actually bringing up is the configuration of
> Jackrabbit at large: I think the current way of configuring Jackrabbit is
> not flexible enough and needs a rework, too (hasn't this been said before
> :-) ). Maybe your concerns (apart from the PersistenceManager problems) is
> mainly an issue of how configuration is taking place ?

Yeah, kind of... I think of the whole problem of fixed configuration
structure another symptom of the current set of mostly fixed internal
interfaces. Since the main structure of Jackrabbit is defined by these
interfaces, the configuration model only needs to provide extension
points for those interfaces and nothing else.

Alternatively one could think of the fixed configuration model as the
cause of fixed interfaces. Since changing the configuration model is
so hard, it is also hard to change the interfaces that are being
configured.

I think you are right in raising the configuration model as a key question.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Mime
View raw message