Sorry to ask, but what is jcr:content for? Regards Carsten
2013/5/6 Amit.. Gupta. <[email protected]> > 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:[email protected]] > Sent: 06 May 2013 13:13 > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 > > -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
