hi jérémi
since i would like to take advantage of your patch to think about a better structure and how we can package things ('simple' is probably not an appropiate package name), i would suggest that to have this solved before we commit the extensions.hope that's fine.
Sure. what kind of changes you want to do?
i'd like to - sort out the webdav part from the 'jcr-server' (see discussion regarding package naming before the 1.0 release). - separate 'simple' and 'jcr' packages (which are currently together in the server) and find a solution for those classes inside the jcr-package that in fact are common classes for both implementations. - find a solution for the suggestion mikhail posted yesterday. basically those 3 issues belong together. finally i would like to build a basis for further development of the 'simple' server, which is not simple any more. i think it would be wise to do this, before we add further extensions to the 'simple' package. your patch was a perfect start for this :)) so i'm currently working on an initial proposal in order to have a discussion basis.
I was not here at the beginning of the week, but i will finish the IOhandler for the version maybe tomorrow.
no need to hurry. i still owe you a review anyway :). regards angela
