Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of
 the.mindstorm.mailinglist@gmail.com designates 64.233.162.233 as permitted
 sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=VbsiQJvW4jDrqsEN3LmCFl51lwV+uAG9gXL94smXmRlS0Q1Sm9p+Opjo1e1hUdCZeM2iwMigdYxxGybDfBmZN1Y1viY/8aEDS5Y+3mWNpm22tSNBjMEpUc4lcuYzNXqT5KUF6C2un7Bv/7KQUKm+fL7saLK1lXVXLGQrL0fJGgA=
Message-ID: <c6f400460707201128od76bd27rbb961034dae5f2ac@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:28:17 +0300
From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_Popescu_=E2=98=80?="
 <the.mindstorm.mailinglist@gmail.com>
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Backwards compatibility, Re: 3.1.3.1 Removing Items
In-Reply-To: <46A0FD4F.1080503@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <469F7E7C.4090906@yourmail.com>
	 <c6f400460707200109q20f40693y8e469aef27e8974d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <8641fd7c0707200149k6d7115bau555dc568801fee28@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c6f400460707200204t727ade60s24e9978246db6313@mail.gmail.com>
	 <8641fd7c0707200355i605e8f96x7251863e2f5f51c4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c6f400460707200414x671a593ap73e2a0036af5534a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46A0E990.1000204@yourmail.com>
	 <510143ac0707201018p53ca033eia60c7e402d5cc429@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c6f400460707201037n75d67e2fn6b747fdcd48c7a74@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46A0FD4F.1080503@gmx.de>

On 7/20/07, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Alexandru Popescu ? wrote:
> > ...
> > Now about the compatibility issue: considering that 2.0 is suggesting
> > the removal of XPath we cannot talk about backward compatibility
> > anymore. One more change at the API level and one that will make
> > things clearer is the smart decission (remember we are not talking
> > about a 1.1 spec, but about 2.0 which is already suggesting
> > non-backward compatible changes).
> > ...
>
> Backwards compatibility was a goal for JSR-283.
>
> Making XPath optional breaks that in a big way, and I personally hope
> that public review will show that people do not like that.
>
> So, instead of opening pandora's box even wider, let's try to close it :-).
>
> Because, *if* backwards compatibility stops being a concern, I have
> *lots* of things I'd like to get rid of, such as same-name siblings,
> certain naming restrictions, addressing, namespace remapping...
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

I basically agree with you, but as with other specs, I am afraid that
bad things will go in, while good things will be left outside. So, we
need to make sure this will not happen.

bests,
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.