> Hello,
>
> currently I can assign a store to a scope in the following way:
>
> store A for scope /
> store B for scope /foo
>
> As I've seen in the code at Uri.parseUri(), nodes in scope /foo are not
> using store B, but store A! I think it would be better that the scope
> definition for store B overwrites the definition of store A. Below you
will
> find my thought as a code snipped from Uri.parseUri():
/foo/* should be mapped to B.
Everything else should be mapped to A.
If it does not happen that way, then it's a bug ...
The mapping "algorithm" is not efficient at all, and will be rewritten.
Remy
