jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: The destiny of Oak (Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Codename for the jr3 implementation effort)
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:28:54 GMT
On 2012-10-01 12:26, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> 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.
> ...

I'm not sure that it's a good idea to call something "Jackrabbit" that 
is so different in what it supports compared to "current" Jackrabbit.

If people want to keep maintaining "classic" Jackrabbit, they should be 
able to do so without having to worry about name confusion.

Best regards, Julian

View raw message