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 14:49:55 GMT
On 2012-10-01 16:20, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-10-01 15:57, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>> 2012/10/1 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Just from the peanut gallery: we did the same years ago with Cocoon,
>> the 2.0 version was 100% different than every previous version, even
>> migration was not possible. And it worked out pretty well - in the
>> beginning everyone referenced the new version as "Cocoon 2" (like JR
>> 3) in contrast to just "Cocoon" for the old one. But over time this
>> changed and wasn't a problem at all.
>>
>> Regards
>> Carsten
>
> Offlist: wenn das nächste CQ auf defaultmäßig auf Oak läuft bin ich
> überzeugt :-)

Well, the off-list part didn't work so well. Sorry for that.

Explaining my concern: in order to achieve it's goals, Oak needs to make 
compromises with respect to JCR features that have proven to be tricky 
to implement in a performant way, for instance, ordering of child nodes 
and support for same-name siblings. If you have an existing application 
on top of JCR that uses nt:unstructured a lot, it will be hard to figure 
out what parts of the content tree will actually rely on these features 
and which do not.

Best regards, Julian


Mime
View raw message