Hi, On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04.03.2010 15:14, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >>...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.
Yes that's what I mean. >> >> 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.... I think a vote is needed if we want to remove the JcrResourceTypeProvider interface, as that's a backward-incompatible change (read on as to why I prefer removing it). > > ...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.... That would not work for the StarResource as that does not provide a Node anymore, so we'd have a somewhat hidden incompatible change. So I'd prefer removing the JcrResourceTypeProvider to make it clear that things have changed, as opposed to keeping it with slightly different semantics. -Bertrand
