jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Nuescheler" <david.nuesche...@gmail.com>
Subject Wishlist for Jackrabbit and JCR v2.0 ;) (was: Jackrabbit is dead (for us))
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:00:15 GMT
Hi Frederic,

thanks for your valuable feedback.
I really appreciate this input compared to walking away silently.

I think your comments resonate with me, and looking at the discusions
we have on the dev-list and in the JCR expert group I am convinced though that
Jackrabbits (and JCR's)  roadmap is well aligned with your
enhancement requests.

> - lack of administration possibilities: It is currently impossible in JR to modify
> an existing node type, to add/modify/remove properties. Refactoring is important
> for us, and impossible in Jackrabbit.
This is important to us as well. I think it is very important to mention
that JSR-170 did not even specify a registration of nodetypes.
JSR-283 proposes those exact administration features. [1]

> -   Strong constraints on the repository structure : we saw in the different
> mailing lists that Jackrabbit works (quite) well with a specific architecture, and
> that not following it induces very important and unacceptable performance
> loss (both for writing and searching);
While I would argue that you would have to follow certain constraints with
respect to the datamodel in any data container to make it scale (be it
an fs or an rdbms)
I would agree with you that we still have a lot of room for
performance improvements
in the JCR space as a whole. Performance and scalability is always a tuning
excercise though.

I guess the Jackrabbit community is very interested in learning about
your usecases
and I am sure we will benefit from the understanding on how you would
like to use
the repository and learn how we can embrace those usecases.

> -  Search is also a (very) important feature for us, and currently Jackrabbit is much
> too limited in this area. SQL is not complete (well we don't need full SQL, but at
> least....joins...); and xpath is limited also, dereferencing is impossible or must be
> developed as an upper layer above Jackrabbit.
I am happy to report that the current draft of JSR-283 also addresses
joins in the
query language.

> Some details also maybe, but most important problems are the three listed above
> (admin, repository structure and search). I think Jackrabbit is good to create a
> blogging system, a forum or any article-based simple website, but it is definitely not
> suitable for professional, generic CMS.
Since Day Software is shipping a JCR based WCMS that is in production
for some of
the worlds most high profile public corporate websites, I could not
disagree more.

Generally I think we are very aligned in our vision on how Jackrabbit
should evolve,
so I think that filing Jira issues for the above would be great.
I am convinced that improving Jackrabbit (keep in mind, this is an
Opensource project)
could cover your needs much quicker than, building your own repository
from scratch.

I am certainly looking forward to your "Public Review" feedback on
JSR-283 which
is about to start within the next weeks. I will certainly keep this
list posted as soon
as we go into "Public Review".

regards,
david

[1] http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=283

Mime
View raw message