jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Thomas Mueller" <thomas.tom.muel...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Less flexibility
Date Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:13:35 GMT
Hi,

I am also for making it less configurable. For my current project
(GlobalDataStore), dead code and deprecated interfaces are quite a
pain. I would also remove unused persistence managers, and code that
we know is not tested well.

Thomas

On 6/29/07, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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