jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tommaso Teofili <teof...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: The destiny of Oak (Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Codename for the jr3 implementation effort)
Date Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:53:20 GMT

On 02/ott/2012, at 10:56, Marcel Reutegger wrote:

> Hi,
> my preference is something like 2), but with the JCR related components
> moved to Jackrabbit. I'd like to see Oak as a hierarchical content repository
> implementation, but not necessarily as a JCR repository. The plugin mechanism
> in Oak was specifically designed for that purpose. Thus Jackrabbit 3 would
> be oak-jcr plus plugins needed to turn a pure Oak repository into a JCR
> repository. On the other hand Oak would mainly consist of the micro kernel
> and oak-core and provide a robust and scalable basis for Jackrabbit 3 but
> also other applications that directly speak to the Oak API.

I personally prefer this approach rather than option 1.
At the same time I see the community development concern; I'm still quite new here so I don't
have a clear understanding of who is actually working on both Oak and Jackrabbit and who's
working only on one of them, also it may be that this distinction doesn't actually exist at
the moment.
Apart from that, as far as I could understand, there is a goal in Oak to be less strict with
regard to JCR spec compatibility which, in my opinion, makes a possibly important point of
If this understanding is correct then I think it'd make sense to have separate projects.
Just my 2 cents,

> Regards
> Marcel
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitting@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Montag, 1. Oktober 2012 12:27
>> To: Oak devs
>> Subject: The destiny of Oak (Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Codename for the jr3
>> implementation effort)
>> Hi,
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> As discussed earlier and mentioned again by Roy, the Oak name is a bit
>>> troublesome for more general branding, which reinforces the point that
>>> we'll use it as a codename for the development effort and decide later
>>> on whether to brand the result as "Jackrabbit 3" or something else.
>> As discussed last week in Berlin, with 6+ months since we started the
>> Oak effort it's probably now time to revisit this issue.
>> Basically the question is about how we want to brand and manage the
>> Oak effort going forward. It looks like we have two main alternatives
>> to choose from:
>> 1) The Oak codebase will become Jackrabbit 3.0 sometime next year
>> replacing the current Jackrabbit trunk, and the Oak codename will
>> gradually be dropped. Current Jackrabbit trunk will move to a separate
>> 2.x branch where it will remain in maintenance mode until everyone has
>> had a chance to migrate to Jackrabbit 3.x. Jackrabbit 3.0 will no
>> longer strive to be a "fully conforming" reference implementation of
>> JCR.
>> 2) We spin off the Oak effort to a new Apache project (Apache Oak, or
>> something else [1]) with its own goals and community; of course with a
>> high priority to make migration from Jackrabbit as easy as possible.
>> Jackrabbit will remain the "fully conforming" JCR implementation, with
>> Jackrabbit 3.0 most likely becoming the reference implementation of
>> JSR 333. Over time the focus of Jackrabbit may shift to become more of
>> a JCR "commons" place where people collaborate on things like the JCR
>> remoting layers, OCM, the test suite, and of course the reference
>> implementation.
>> WDYT?
>> [1] When I asked, the early feedback from trademarks@apache.org about
>> the "Oak" codename was that something like "Apache Oak" would likely
>> be OK, but that we probably wouldn't be able to prevent anyone else
>> from starting a competing "Oak" project. Not sure if that's a problem
>> in practice.
>> BR,
>> Jukka Zitting

View raw message