From users-return-13256-apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive=jackrabbit.apache.org@jackrabbit.apache.org Tue Nov 10 18:25:34 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 55651 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2009 18:25:34 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Nov 2009 18:25:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 55277 invoked by uid 500); 10 Nov 2009 18:25:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 55214 invoked by uid 500); 10 Nov 2009 18:25:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 55203 invoked by uid 99); 10 Nov 2009 18:25:34 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:25:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of chadmichaeldavis@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.214 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.214] (HELO mail-bw0-f214.google.com) (209.85.218.214) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:25:31 +0000 Received: by bwz6 with SMTP id 6so323779bwz.11 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:25:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=bNNaP9D14yDXXu+M+sEnkTsokoYlgeZRd04cDNbbcRU=; b=exZbhQzoJIKyCAc0r7TSMfWOK6FmfiYqyOOzL4LLIqcNJOK76lIGIpPHxNKGpPf4eg TZLJer+kiAnCdb9dCgCLx045sTzMl12sjX4ssfyTPoaoNaBYua/MDksaWAKdD41wEKtU ZGii6yOUBQ656pgd8p4qFUE7cY2f+YKPoFjqg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=mOVwuWEAs38BtQDM1+uegGLFVUOkXUKdxWXcLYyE8RlemQQpTB6EUC97opSIcNz4lm nXV7aP1H0oCuwTTGgAQDnCdbxfvCio37+uCZbhb73L0m0KCtZ9eMFXnKfMRu0aeZR2OX EyduzutUeDtlKZL6ZdWGpkGHgPfknlEkWI4s0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.26.134 with SMTP id e6mr424318bkc.87.1257877509009; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:25:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:25:08 -0700 Message-ID: <4fe4c4f50911101025i495a3187vf0950aac633a9882@mail.gmail.com> Subject: 1.0 or 2.0 From: ChadDavis To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm starting a new project. The main development cycle will occur in the next 2-3 months. I would like to solicit opinions on whether the 2.0 version of jackrabbit should be my target platform. This depends upon a couple of things, that I'm aware of. 1) What's the time line for Jackrabbit 2.0 moving to a stable release? I read on the web site that it's just waiting for the JCR2.0 release? 2) If I go with 1.6, how difficult will a later migration to 2.0 be? What are the factors?