jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: On setting component boundaries in Oak
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:23:10 GMT
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stefan Guggisberg
> <stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> whenever i see the term "framework" i am kind of sceptical ;).
>> my usual experience with frameworks is that they're doing
>> an ok job for the standard use cases but can't handle real world
>> problems. that's just my personal take of course.
> Fair point. I guess we'll see by time whether the shared parts of
> potential different MK implementations are best organized as a shared
> library that the MK implementations call to or as a shared framework
> that calls out to custom extensions.
>>> With that concept, the oak-mk component would contain not just the MK
>>> API, but also the default implementation and a set of extension
>>> interfaces by which different storage, clustering and other parts can
>>> be plugged in depending on the deployment.
>> agreed.
> So here's an updated component diagram that outlines the oak-jcr,
> oak-core and oak-mk components as proposed:
>    http://people.apache.org/~jukka/2012/oak-components4.png
> We can (and probably will) split off the Oak and MK APIs to separate
> components down the line. But I'd like to keep them just as separate
> Java packages for now until the interfaces have stabilized enough for
> us to start making some level of backwards compatibility promises on
> them.

+1, thanks


> BR,
> Jukka Zitting

View raw message