Hi, On 04.03.2010 15:14, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote: >> ...I think we should go with Felix suggestion (which I think we already >> suggested some months ago) and provide a better interface for the >> resource type provider... > > Agree, that makes sense, so we'd move from a JcrResourceTypeProvider > interface to a new ResourceTypeProvider one, that maps a Resource to a > path?
If you mean the PathBasedResourceTypeProvider would have to migrated to take a Resource (and thus implement the new ResourceTypeProvider interface), then yes. > > This would be not be backwards-compatible, so I think we need a vote > to remove JcrResourceTypeProvider - but adapting existing > implementations would be easy. I don't think we have to immediately start voting, if everybody is ok with the change. In addition, we can keep the JcrResourceTypeProvider interface and mark it deprecated (to be removed sometime in the future) and implement a compatibility layer, which calls into the old JcrResourceTypeProvider services if the resource adapts to a node. Regards Felix
