jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject The destiny of Oak (Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Codename for the jr3 implementation effort)
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:26:49 GMT

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

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


[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.


Jukka Zitting

View raw message