jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexandru Popescu ☀" <the.mindstorm.mailingl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: 7.4 Appendix D: JCR 1.0 XPath (Deprecated)
Date Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:51:02 GMT
On 7/17/07, IvanLatysh <ivan@yourmail.com> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
> > I'm not free to discuss the specifics of the discussions leading to
> > this decision, but the query features have certainly been one of the
> > more debated areas of the specification. There are a number of
> > conflicting requirements from various vendors and users, and it was
> > felt that specifying an abstract query model instead of a specific
> > query syntax would better allow us to express the specific query
> > functionality that a content repository needs to implement.
> I would like to see the AQM use-case that can't be expressed in XQuery ?
> The point is that I do not see the reason to introduce AQM as intermediate query
> language when XQuery is more powerful, well defined and natively fit JCR model.
> > Note that Jackrabbit will most certainly continue to support XPath and
> > our plan is actually to implement an XPath/XQuery to JCR query model
> > converter, that should be usable by any JCR 2.0 repository or client
> > to support queries expressed in (a subset of) XPath or XQuery.
> XPath is out of the spec, it does not matter if JR support it or not.
> B.t.w. make no sense to write XQuery -> AQM transformer, because it will hit the
> wall very fast. On the other hand AQM -> XQuery transformer is much easier to
> write and will have more features.
> As I sad before XQuery is much more powerful than AQM. Unless AQM will replicate
> XQuery, if it does, what is the point of re-inventing the wheel ?
> Also I am confused why committee dropping XPath support when the entire industry
>   moving towards XML data interoperability ...
> > Please let us know at jsr-283-comments@jcp.org. Direct user feedback
> > is very valuable, especially since most of the expert group members
> > represent the repository implementer and vendor point of view.
> Yes I will.
> --
> Ivan Latysh
> ivan@yourmail.com

At a first glance I am a bit with Ivan here. I am confused how the 2.0
version is completely replacing a feature that was praised in the
first spec version... and I am confused by how spec 2.0 is supposed to
work with 1.0 when it removes (and not deprecates) features from
previous spec. But I will have to read through the spec for more
detailed comments.

.w( the_mindstorm )p.

View raw message