XXXXFilesystem types in the secuirty schema.

[Tom Zeller]

>> backwards compatible to change these to accept generic resources.  My
>> question is whether it is worth the effort - particularly since they both
>> have Inline homologues which would answer the use case for having not
>> filesystem resources in a configuration.
>
> I've been bitten by the "oh that has to be an *actual file*" thing so many times recently that my gut reaction is to use generic resources, particularly if it's trivial and backwards compatible to do so.
>
> Very much a gut reaction though, I don't have a specific use case.

I spent enough time abstracting file system resources to Spring
resources that I think the additional effort here is okay. However, if
the use case for such a thing is minimal or nil, then I suggest
postponing.