On 10/18/07, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...Well, thinking along these lines: Why do we need a Resource and > ResourceResolver in the first place then ? .......
Technically, as we're limiting ourselves to JCR content, we don't really need a Resource, you're right. But currently the Resource does abstract the fact that a Node might be mapped to an Object or not. The fact that the Resource interface is small doesn't make it useless: it makes it beautiful ;-) OTOH we *do* need the ResourceResolver interface very much: it encapsulates our "rules" for finding a Resource that the current request must process. > ...Honestly, if we abstract the Resource, we also have to take the next > step and abstract access to relative Resources and children.... I might agree about the relative resources, but why the children? And why just the children axis and not the full ancestors/descendants/siblings/next/previous axes? If navigation between Resources is needed and that cannot be covered by JCR, I'd suggest making that a separate ResourceHierarchyNavigation interface. -Bertrand
