I am in favour of keeping both jcr:content and sling:members, it might look additional today. But this will ensure that we have enough flexibility to evolve in future.
If this looks fine to everyone, I can work on a patch.. Thanks, -Amit -----Original Message----- From: Felix Meschberger [mailto:fmesc...@adobe.com] Sent: 06 May 2013 13:13 To: dev@sling.apache.org Subject: Re: Please vote for SLING-2853 Hi I have just committed the latest patch. Thanks for that so far. I am sure the discussion and fine-tuning will continue. So I invite to continue such discussions and create follow-up issues for implementation/fixes/etc. As for the last comment by AlexK: Yes, the jcr:content/sling:members child node may sound like an additional redirection. On the other hand it will help keeing the tree structure structurized -- Once we have some data stored out there it will probably become harder and harder to change the structure later. So much like API I like to get data structures right as early as possible. Regards Felix Am 06.05.2013 um 09:11 schrieb Felix Meschberger: > Hi > > Am 06.05.2013 um 08:54 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz: > >> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> ...One thing we imho should discuss is whether this should be using >>> the api package, like o.a.s.api.resource.collection; We could leave >>> it in the separate bundle as is right now, and once we consider it >>> stable, move the package to the official API package.... >> >> That would work but there's some potential for confusion if we do >> that, I prefer a separate o.a.s.collections package as now. > > Yes, the current proposal is o.a.s.resource.collections which sounds > good IMHO > > Regards > Felix
