> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Actually, I wasn't talking about Jackrabbit either. > > If JCR 2.0 adds requirements that are unlikely to be implemented, that's > IMHO a problem. Either you'll end up with no implementations, or with > broken implementations (with respect to that feature).
Ok, that's also a good point, Julian, I haven't thought about that one. For me it just seemed to be more logical to talk about the specification and the requirements first and then maybe think about implementation details, not vice versa. "Maybe", because it's JCR, not Jackrabbit... Let's just say in the end we want the same, Jackrabbit to work according to a good JCR spec ;-) Best regards Hendrik
