JCR Commons or Commons JCR

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

A notable part of our codebase is stuff that works on top of the JCR
API without a direct relation to the Jackrabbit repository
implementation. Having this code in Jackrabbit is one key driver for
example in the desire to make our release process more componentized.
It also makes the "What is Jackrabbit?" question harder to answer and
looks weird in JCR client applications that have a direct dependency
to "Jackrabbit" even if it's just jackrabbit-jcr-commons.

David just brought up the idea of splitting such general purpose JCR
code out of Jackrabbit. One way to do it would be to create a "JCR
Commons" subproject within Jackrabbit, and another would be to propose
starting a "Commons JCR" component in Apache Commons.

WDYT?

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Re: JCR Commons or Commons JCR

[Tobias Bocanegra <to...@day.com>]

On 9/26/08, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  A notable part of our codebase is stuff that works on top of the JCR
>  API without a direct relation to the Jackrabbit repository
>  implementation. Having this code in Jackrabbit is one key driver for
>  example in the desire to make our release process more componentized.
>  It also makes the "What is Jackrabbit?" question harder to answer and
>  looks weird in JCR client applications that have a direct dependency
>  to "Jackrabbit" even if it's just jackrabbit-jcr-commons.
>
>  David just brought up the idea of splitting such general purpose JCR
>  code out of Jackrabbit. One way to do it would be to create a "JCR
>  Commons" subproject within Jackrabbit, and another would be to propose
>  starting a "Commons JCR" component in Apache Commons.
>
>  WDYT?
i find this a very good idea. i would love to have all the helpers and
tools that operate directly on jcr and not the jackrabbit-api in a
commons-jcr project. having it outside of jackrabbit is surely the
longtime goal - but some code of jackrabbit core depends on it, and i
fear that a new commons-jcr project would be less controllable if not
maintained by jackrabbit devs. otoh it wold certainly push jcr more to
the community and make it even more visible.

so what about 'incubate' a jcr-commons
(org.apache.jackrabbit.commons.jcr.*) within jackrabbit and shell out
all important peaces, and then once released as jackrabbit project
apply for a subproject within apache-commons ?

regards, toby

Re: JCR Commons or Commons JCR

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Alexander Klimetschek <ak...@day.com> wrote:
> ...Maybe for the start it would be enough to make commons-jcr a
> distinctive sub-project of jackrabbit, ie. create a separate
> sub-section on the website + mailing lists and jira... it's all about
> perception ;-)...

+1 to this, so as to stay within this community, while clearly
separating things.

-Bertrand

Re: JCR Commons or Commons JCR

[Alexander Klimetschek <ak...@day.com>]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Tobias Bocanegra
<to...@day.com> wrote:
> i think it
> would help to drive JCR as standard if there would be a commons-jcr.
> and for that alone it's worth it.

+1

Maybe for the start it would be enough to make commons-jcr a
distinctive sub-project of jackrabbit, ie. create a separate
sub-section on the website + mailing lists and jira... it's all about
perception ;-)

Regards,
Alex

-- 
Alexander Klimetschek
alexander.klimetschek@day.com

Re: JCR Commons or Commons JCR

[Tobias Bocanegra <to...@day.com>]

On 9/28/08, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  I agree, that the Apache Jackrabbit project is really a collection
>  multiple projects: JCR-170/283 RI, SPI, JCR-RMI, OCM and JCR-Commons. As
>  such we already live in a world where "Jackrabbit" means the RI and the
>  Apache Project "umbrella".
>
>  I think we should acknowledge this and act accordingly ;-)
>
>  Therefore, I think the natural location for such a commons library is
>  the Apache Jackrabbit project -- as a user I would look for such a
>  library at jackrabbit.apache.org and not at jakarta.apache.org.
i don't :-) as i would not look for commons-fileupload or commons-el
to be in tomcat (might be a bit far fetched :-). however, i think it
would help to drive JCR as standard if there would be a commons-jcr.
and for that alone it's worth it.

regards, toby

>  Jukka Zitting schrieb:
>
> > Hi,
>  >
>  > A notable part of our codebase is stuff that works on top of the JCR
>  > API without a direct relation to the Jackrabbit repository
>  > implementation. Having this code in Jackrabbit is one key driver for
>  > example in the desire to make our release process more componentized.
>  > It also makes the "What is Jackrabbit?" question harder to answer and
>  > looks weird in JCR client applications that have a direct dependency
>  > to "Jackrabbit" even if it's just jackrabbit-jcr-commons.
>  >
>  > David just brought up the idea of splitting such general purpose JCR
>  > code out of Jackrabbit. One way to do it would be to create a "JCR
>  > Commons" subproject within Jackrabbit, and another would be to propose
>  > starting a "Commons JCR" component in Apache Commons.
>  >
>  > WDYT?
>  >
>  > BR,
>  >
>  > Jukka Zitting
>  >
>

Re: JCR Commons or Commons JCR

[Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

I agree, that the Apache Jackrabbit project is really a collection
multiple projects: JCR-170/283 RI, SPI, JCR-RMI, OCM and JCR-Commons. As
such we already live in a world where "Jackrabbit" means the RI and the
Apache Project "umbrella".

I think we should acknowledge this and act accordingly ;-)

Therefore, I think the natural location for such a commons library is
the Apache Jackrabbit project -- as a user I would look for such a
library at jackrabbit.apache.org and not at jakarta.apache.org.

Regards
Felix

Jukka Zitting schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> A notable part of our codebase is stuff that works on top of the JCR
> API without a direct relation to the Jackrabbit repository
> implementation. Having this code in Jackrabbit is one key driver for
> example in the desire to make our release process more componentized.
> It also makes the "What is Jackrabbit?" question harder to answer and
> looks weird in JCR client applications that have a direct dependency
> to "Jackrabbit" even if it's just jackrabbit-jcr-commons.
> 
> David just brought up the idea of splitting such general purpose JCR
> code out of Jackrabbit. One way to do it would be to create a "JCR
> Commons" subproject within Jackrabbit, and another would be to propose
> starting a "Commons JCR" component in Apache Commons.
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> BR,
> 
> Jukka Zitting
>