Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=Df5RfViXwkgANTzI85X+9W++paPnSM9ZtBPcjqnns1y2XiC6QsbJ/XG8rZJBckFx08
         oa09GhaIsKJmIHLiZ4xR3J0xu2/NXE/eahvSWyBnzyQk4/YweP9oJlIACnWal34qf+Cl
         J7B3KSEnCY6tyksaV+pmd77zqGEJ7LGSFjZyc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikj5HP2KbZ6qK7bOWZM5QMmSQjWjho8K849vM17@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikQ_34czN9uHX0Ou0iFYs6T9Qp_pO=915Dhwxbv@mail.gmail.com>
	<C91A6D49.7975%mueller@adobe.com>
	<AANLkTikj5HP2KbZ6qK7bOWZM5QMmSQjWjho8K849vM17@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:42:49 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=CZ0_1g53e8u-6nwatyaPSHm3TSdHroUogPxh3@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [jr3] One Project
From: Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com>
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (I'm not a developer here, so consider this peanut gallery talk)
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Mueller <mueller@adobe.com> wrote:
>> ....I think reducing the number of
>> projects for Jackrabbit 3 will result in a simpler, more standard build....
>
> Reducing the number of Maven modules probably makes sense, but "just
> one module" is probably too much of a restriction. Granularity is a
> hard problem, and extreme views on that usually don't work, in my
> experience.
>
>> ...If we include all dependencies (such as Apache Commons jar files) you
>> would need a special class loader, right? Otherwise there may be conflicts
>> with if somebody already uses a different version of a Apache Commons
>> library that Jackrabbit also uses. That would be quite complex I guess, so
>> I wouldn't do that. Instead, I would just concentrate on having as few jar
>> files as possible...
>
> OSGi solves that problem nicely,

so you can have multiple versions of the same jar/bundle concurrently
deployed in the same osgi container?

> and the base framework is not heavy at all.
>
> Having a small set of OSGi-friendly (but maybe not OSGi-based, for
> broad use) jars for jr3, and combining them with an OSGi runtime for
> the out-of-the-box jr3 runnable jar, might be the best way to solve
> this.
>
>>... I think it would be an advantage if we could reduce the
>> number of dependencies however (maybe even make Lucene optional - that
>> would allow to use Jackrabbit on Android)....
>
> Agree about making indexing/search pluggable - I have a few use cases
> in mind (like using Solr or what Apache Stanbol is starting to create)
> where alternate/multiple indexing systems would add a lot of value.
>
> BTW, is there an agreed upon set of goals for jr3 somewhere?
>
> There have been discussions on this list, but if jr3 development is
> about to ramp up now might be a good time to make sure all developers
> are on the same page w.r.t development goals and constraints.
>
> -Bertrand
>