Hi, On Feb 16, 2008 2:48 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 16, 2008 2:32 PM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We could of course definitely just give it a try. But what information > > would you store in the sling:config node ? mappings of resource type > > sets to replacement resource types ? > > Replacement types might be OK, but I'd store direct resource type -> > component mappings.
After thinking about this a bit more, I think a resource type replacement or "override" feature would actually be harmful. It introduces another layer of indirection in an already complex resolution system and still depends on components to be aware of such special node types (by declaring that they can process the type). The proposed resource type -> component mappings would only add entries to the existing mapping mechanism. BR, Jukka Zitting
