Mailing-List: contact oak-dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jukka.zitting@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F5A0E96.6060308@apache.org>
References: 
 <CAOFYJNZhxUD5RSVkqO+sxeSQmKQ6qmX-YS0jBLbTs=05J0CNqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F5A025B.8050600@adobe.com> <4F5A0608.5030607@apache.org>
 <CAFYk8N=0fJf9yoA8tueAT3ayD-=U+T-yAz4Mq7g8vM8ZocSv-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F5A0911.4080803@apache.org>
 <CAOFYJNYxEB7QYomZ2hHgDEoMXzS95TDX1thi+eWGKTV237A1vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F5A0E96.6060308@apache.org>
From: Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:20:32 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAOFYJNY7Ka3xg4ninWA-rL-jiDHGTCBP5x+UMVxO6oRGuVzOAA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: On setting component boundaries in Oak
To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Michael D=FCrig <mduerig@apache.org> wrote:
> Yes this makes total sense. My point was, if the oak-spi is nothing more
> than jcr modulo transient space, why would we need another API?

I see where you're going. I have two main reasons why I think this
would not be ideal:

1) It causes confusion, as in: Am I using "standard JCR" or "Oak JCR"
here? What's the difference?

2) The JCR API is not designed with modularity or extensibility in
mind. It's notoriously difficult to decorate or extend the API.

For these reasons I think we should define a lower-level API that's
explicitly designed to match Oak features.

BR,

Jukka Zitting