You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> on 2012/03/01 11:18:15 UTC

Re: [jr3] Tree model

Hi,
Am 28.02.2012 um 18:21 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> Otherwise
> we'll just continue down the path where everyone has their own
> MicroKernel implementation.

I don't think this is bad per se .. in fact it could be the source of better implementations.

It may even end up with two implementations with strength in different areas and use cases for both ...

Regards
Felix

Re: [jr3] Tree model

Posted by Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com>.

Hi,

On 3/1/12 11:18 AM, "Felix Meschberger" <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>Am 28.02.2012 um 18:21 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>> Otherwise
>> we'll just continue down the path where everyone has their own
>> MicroKernel implementation.
>
>I don't think this is bad per se .. in fact it could be the source of
>better implementations.
>
>It may even end up with two implementations with strength in different
>areas and use cases for both ...

We can try to further combine common areas. One such area is probably the
node (which is what Jukkas proposal is about), specially because it is
also required in the layers above.

Regards,
Thomas