Jukka Zitting wrote:
> On 8/8/07, Christoph Kiehl <christoph@sulu3000.de> wrote:
>> Sounds good. We just need to make sure that those jsr283 interfaces do not
>> interfere with jsr170 interfaces because some Jackrabbit classes will need to
>> implement both interfaces. But since jsr283 should be mainly backwards
>> compatible this shouldn't be a problem.
>
> Yep. In case we do ran up with compatibility issues, I think we have a
> good case to request a change in JSR 283.
As far as I recall, we have at least one method signature that changed
with respect to throwing exceptions...
>> Or do you want to start a whole new branch where all jsr170 interfaces
>> are replaced by jsr283 interfaces?
>
> We need to do that eventually, but I'd very much like to push the
> branch point as far ahead as possible to avoid getting stuck with two
> parallel actively developed codebases. Ideally we'd release 1.4 and
> perhaps even 1.5 with early JCR 2.0 features included before dropping
> JCR 1.0 from svn trunk and focusing on the real JCR 2.0 interfaces for
> the Jackrabbit 2.0 release.
+1
Best regards, Julian
|