You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lenya.apache.org by Andreas Hartmann <an...@apache.org> on 2005/08/31 11:42:49 UTC
[Summary] [RFO] [1.4] JCR-only vs. Repository Abstraction Layer
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Hi Lenya devs,
>
> we have to come to a decision about the repository question.
> People stated their opinions, it looks like there are two
> general directions.
> (a) Lenya should focus on JCR only. It is OK to implement core
> functionality which absolutely relies on JCR features.
It looks like the general opinion of the community is to go
for a JCR-based approach.
Some concerns that were brought up:
- Is this sufficient? Can we require people to implement JCR
to access custom repositories?
- Is Jackrabbit stable enough to act as the default Lenya
repository implementation?
If these concerns are not considered weighty, we should start to
re-design the Lenya repository layer. IMO it makes sense to use
a Wiki page to collect random thoughts and to refine them gradually.
Of course a meeting (brainstorming day) would be great. Maybe all
involved people want to visit Zurich? :)
-- Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org
Re: [Summary] [RFO] [1.4] JCR-only vs. Repository Abstraction Layer
Posted by "J. Wolfgang Kaltz" <ka...@interactivesystems.info>.
Andreas Hartmann schrieb:
>>> (...)
>>> - Is Jackrabbit stable enough to act as the default Lenya
>>> repository implementation?
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that's a valid concern. I guess, from the community
>> perspective, we have to try :) An alternative scenario is to base
>> Lenya's content handling on the JCR API anyway (meaning, a Lenya node
>> becomes a JCR node etc.) and for storage have our content mapped
>> one-to-one onto files, as it is now.
>
>
> Does this mean that we provide our own stripped-down JCR implementation?
Yes. What I am wondering is if it would be possible to turn the current
Lenya repository implementation inside-out. Lenya internals would only
use JCR classes (instead of e.g. Lenya's Node class). The current
repository implementation becomes Lenya's stripped-down JCR
implementation, which would be registered using the same mechanism as
any other JCR implementation. I'm not sure that makes sense, but if it
does, it should make for a smoother transition.
--
Wolfgang
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org
Re: [Summary] [RFO] [1.4] JCR-only vs. Repository Abstraction Layer
Posted by Andreas Hartmann <an...@apache.org>.
J. Wolfgang Kaltz wrote:
> Andreas Hartmann schrieb:
>
>> (...)
>>
>>> (a) Lenya should focus on JCR only. It is OK to implement core
>>> functionality which absolutely relies on JCR features.
>>
>>
>> (...)
>> - Is this sufficient? Can we require people to implement JCR
>> to access custom repositories?
>
>
> What is meant here with access to custom repositories ? If it's
> integrating external sources, that IMO has no effect on Lenya/JCR: if
> you want the CMS to manage that source, it's no longer external and it
> would instead need to be imported.
I share this opinion. But, to quote Michi:
>> But - do we really want to allow editing a Forrest site?
> sure. No offense, but if Lenya isn't able to do this, then Lenya is
> pretty useless. If Lenya doesn't allow building a Forrest publication,
> then I think we have totally missed the goal of providing a Content Management
> Framework
IIUC he means that Lenya should be able to edit external content directly.
Please correct me if I got this wrong.
> If instead you want data managed
> elsewhere to be displayed within a publication, this also wouldn't be
> affected by Lenya switching to JCR
> So IMO this question is not applicable
>
>>
>> - Is Jackrabbit stable enough to act as the default Lenya
>> repository implementation?
>
>
> I agree that's a valid concern. I guess, from the community perspective,
> we have to try :) An alternative scenario is to base Lenya's content
> handling on the JCR API anyway (meaning, a Lenya node becomes a JCR node
> etc.) and for storage have our content mapped one-to-one onto files, as
> it is now.
Does this mean that we provide our own stripped-down JCR implementation?
>> If these concerns are not considered weighty, we should start to
>> re-design the Lenya repository layer. IMO it makes sense to use
>> a Wiki page to collect random thoughts and to refine them gradually.
>>
>> Of course a meeting (brainstorming day) would be great. Maybe all
>> involved people want to visit Zurich? :)
>
>
> I'd be interested in that. I'm coming to Zurich anyway on a personal
> matter Sept. 24-25, so let me be the first to propose a date ;)
> How about monday, Sept. 26th ?
+1, if my boss agrees :)
-- Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org
Re: [Summary] [RFO] [1.4] JCR-only vs. Repository Abstraction Layer
Posted by "J. Wolfgang Kaltz" <ka...@interactivesystems.info>.
Andreas Hartmann schrieb:
> (...)
>> (a) Lenya should focus on JCR only. It is OK to implement core
>> functionality which absolutely relies on JCR features.
>
> (...)
> - Is this sufficient? Can we require people to implement JCR
> to access custom repositories?
What is meant here with access to custom repositories ? If it's
integrating external sources, that IMO has no effect on Lenya/JCR: if
you want the CMS to manage that source, it's no longer external and it
would instead need to be imported. If instead you want data managed
elsewhere to be displayed within a publication, this also wouldn't be
affected by Lenya switching to JCR
So IMO this question is not applicable
>
> - Is Jackrabbit stable enough to act as the default Lenya
> repository implementation?
I agree that's a valid concern. I guess, from the community perspective,
we have to try :) An alternative scenario is to base Lenya's content
handling on the JCR API anyway (meaning, a Lenya node becomes a JCR node
etc.) and for storage have our content mapped one-to-one onto files, as
it is now.
>
>
> If these concerns are not considered weighty, we should start to
> re-design the Lenya repository layer. IMO it makes sense to use
> a Wiki page to collect random thoughts and to refine them gradually.
>
> Of course a meeting (brainstorming day) would be great. Maybe all
> involved people want to visit Zurich? :)
I'd be interested in that. I'm coming to Zurich anyway on a personal
matter Sept. 24-25, so let me be the first to propose a date ;)
How about monday, Sept. 26th ?
--
Wolfgang
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org
Re: [Summary] [RFO] [1.4] JCR-only vs. Repository Abstraction Layer
Posted by Andreas Hartmann <an...@apache.org>.
Torsten Schlabach wrote:
> > Of course a meeting (brainstorming day) would be great. Maybe all
> > involved people want to visit Zurich? :)
>
> Good idea, but depends on schedule. Would this be on a working day or
> rather in the weekend? Will one day do?
Michi started a thread ("Lenya Hackathon Proposal").
-- Andreas
>
> Regards,
> Torsten
>
> Andreas Hartmann schrieb:
>
>> Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lenya devs,
>>>
>>> we have to come to a decision about the repository question.
>>> People stated their opinions, it looks like there are two
>>> general directions.
>>
>>
>>
>>> (a) Lenya should focus on JCR only. It is OK to implement core
>>> functionality which absolutely relies on JCR features.
>>
>>
>>
>> It looks like the general opinion of the community is to go
>> for a JCR-based approach.
>>
>> Some concerns that were brought up:
>>
>> - Is this sufficient? Can we require people to implement JCR
>> to access custom repositories?
>>
>> - Is Jackrabbit stable enough to act as the default Lenya
>> repository implementation?
>>
>>
>> If these concerns are not considered weighty, we should start to
>> re-design the Lenya repository layer. IMO it makes sense to use
>> a Wiki page to collect random thoughts and to refine them gradually.
>>
>> Of course a meeting (brainstorming day) would be great. Maybe all
>> involved people want to visit Zurich? :)
>>
>> -- Andreas
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org
Re: [Summary] [RFO] [1.4] JCR-only vs. Repository Abstraction Layer
Posted by Torsten Schlabach <ts...@apache.org>.
> Of course a meeting (brainstorming day) would be great. Maybe all
> involved people want to visit Zurich? :)
Good idea, but depends on schedule. Would this be on a working day or
rather in the weekend? Will one day do?
Regards,
Torsten
Andreas Hartmann schrieb:
> Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>
>> Hi Lenya devs,
>>
>> we have to come to a decision about the repository question.
>> People stated their opinions, it looks like there are two
>> general directions.
>
>
>> (a) Lenya should focus on JCR only. It is OK to implement core
>> functionality which absolutely relies on JCR features.
>
>
> It looks like the general opinion of the community is to go
> for a JCR-based approach.
>
> Some concerns that were brought up:
>
> - Is this sufficient? Can we require people to implement JCR
> to access custom repositories?
>
> - Is Jackrabbit stable enough to act as the default Lenya
> repository implementation?
>
>
> If these concerns are not considered weighty, we should start to
> re-design the Lenya repository layer. IMO it makes sense to use
> a Wiki page to collect random thoughts and to refine them gradually.
>
> Of course a meeting (brainstorming day) would be great. Maybe all
> involved people want to visit Zurich? :)
>
> -- Andreas
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org