Bertrand Delacretaz wrote > 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. > I tend to agree here; I mean even if we follow Felix's suggestion and make some kind of compatibility stuff, we will remove the old jcr resource type provider sometime later on anyway. So we could just do it right away :)
Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
