jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: Isolation level inconsistency.
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:46:24 GMT
Hendrik Beck (camunda) wrote:
> One more thing I want to say:
> "again you're proposing a major change to JCR."
> "Maybe it's just me, but I have no idea how that could be implemented
> efficiently, *in
> particular* if you don't have the luxury to develop that functionality from
> scratch."
> 1) In my eyes the public review is there to give any feedback, to discuss
> everything and to make proposals, whether they are major changes or just
> little remarks.

That's right. The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was 
that this is a major change to *JCR 1.0*.

> 2) I wouldn't agree that discussions about implementation details should be
> part of a public review of a specification. Sure we should keep an eye on
> the implementation, it has to be done at some point. But, we talk about JCR,
> not Jackrabbit. The JCR specification shouldn't take care about
> implementation details of one product (Jackrabbit), but it should find the
> best way to make the specification according to people's needs and
> requirements.

Actually, I wasn't talking about Jackrabbit either.

If JCR 2.0 adds requirements that are unlikely to be implemented, that's 
IMHO a problem. Either you'll end up with no implementations, or with 
broken implementations (with respect to that feature).

Best regards, Julian

View raw message