Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> ...currently the API >> does not have any other reference to JCR! So, introducing this one >> single dependency does not seem to fit the "JCR backed" theme either, >> right? It's one method out of hundreds (didn't really count them).... > > Not sure if I understand correctly, do you mean that is a good thing > that the API doesn't (or didn't) have a dependency on the JCR libs? :) I think it should either have a deep dependency on JCR or non at all, but not just one method.
> > Me, I don't really care...it feels a bit funny to have just one method > be dependent on JCR, but that might just indicate that the API is well > decoupled from JCR. I think this indicates that there is something wrong with the API :) But fortunately I can get back to the beach as Felix has found a nice solution. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
