jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Mueller <muel...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: JSOP
Date Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:20:13 GMT

>If the task is "define a patch format for use over HTTP Patch", then
>yes, we can assume HTTP is there.

Yes. But for Jackrabbit 3, we want to define an API that doesn't require
HTTP (or ZIP). Currently it's a Java API, but we might extend it to other
programming languages such a PHP, C#, and C.

>We still suffer from an agreed-upon set of design goals and constraints.

In my view, the goal is to standardize a format that supports the features
required by the current use cases. Probably the most advanced use case is
the Jackrabbit 3 MicroKernel API. Also, the features required by the
MicroKernel API should be supported. The format can't rely on a HTTP

>If we want to *standardize* something, we need to abstract away things
>specific to JCR.

The standard must not refer to JCR, but the standard should support the
features required by JCR. Is this what you mean if you write "abstract
> Also, we need either to get the features we need into
>the common formats (such as support for tagging batches or adding
>tests), *or* need to make sure extension points are in place.

I agree. Extension points could be documented as optional features.


View raw message