On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Oliver Lietz <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm aware of that thread and therefore suggest to drive the spec towards > version 3. Providing tools for upgrading from 2 to 3 would allow to break > backwards compatibility and evolve.
I believe this is orthogonal to current issue that we are discussing. Something which require wider effort! In this thread I would prefer to focus on the issue at hand and determine the approach to take. > When using special Oak nodetypes (and moving further away from JCR) we should stop claiming to be a web framework using JCR but Oak. That may be one option as authentication layer depends on how Oak authentication works. But if we want to stick to JCR we can define our own nodetype and use that and not rely on Oak specific nodetype (Option #3) Chetan Mehrotra
