Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of anchela@day.com designates
 207.126.148.85 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4BECECBE.2020504@day.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 08:25:02 +0200
From: Angela Schreiber <anchela@day.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jr3] Jackrabbit 3 in trunk
References: <AANLkTimO5x2baZh_Zymd76kRaFU94jeecWOJud4AuE5b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimO5x2baZh_Zymd76kRaFU94jeecWOJud4AuE5b@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

hi jukka

> Thomas has done some nice work with the jackrabbit-j3 prototype in the
> sandbox. To make this codebase easily available to other developers
> and to allow better reuse of existing Jackrabbit code and integration
> with things like jackrabbit-standalone, I propose that we move the
> component from the sandbox to Jackrabbit trunk. This means that the
> component would be included as a technology preview in future 2.x
> releases and that we'd include it in our normal continuous integration
> builds. The downside is the increased build time in trunk.

not sure... i have the impression that it is too early to move
the prototype out of the sandbox.

and i don't fully understand your arguments for the move: reuse
of existing code is achieved by adding dependencies to other
modules in either way, isn't it? and furthermore, i don't understand
why a sandbox project wasn't easily available... my criteria for a
move into trunk would rather be: this prototype isn't a prototype any
more and we feel comfortable to include it into your regular release
cycle.

regards
angela

> WDYT?
> 
> BR,
> 
> Jukka Zitting
>