Angela Schreiber schrieb:
-1 for having the security-manager optional.
If it is not optional, we are obviously not backward compatible.
someone having an 1.4 configuration with a custom
access manager would be forced to change it anyway.
I believe most users use the default settings.
so, the question is whether we want to stress out the
changes made to code base and have users being aware
of that or if want to focus on backwards compatibility
taking the risk that people don't change their config
and can't start the repository afterwards.
to me the first variant looks better.
but i can live with both...
I think it's important to focus on backwards compatibility and that the
repository still starts up,
whereas I think at the same time one should add "big" WARNINGS to the
log file and pointing out what needs to be changed in order to be
up-to-date.
At some later stage (for example Release 2.0) one can announce that
older configurations are EOL
Cheers
Michael
angela
