Mailing-List: contact clerezza-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: clerezza-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: reto@trialox.org
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:03:30 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimKqmGA8Zo4p1xQL8vWEYHz8TrhLJPwfunG8Acr@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Your commit and RichGraphNode
From: Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto.bachmann@trialox.org>
To: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, clerezza-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d7ee7282b20a049e8a1537

--0016e6d7ee7282b20a049e8a1537
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Henry

Could you please fix yesterday's commit? There are still experiments and
discussion in it.

One discussion (taken from
rdf.scala.utils/src/main/scala/org/apache/clerezza/rdf/scala/utils/RichGraphNode.scala):

/* because it is tedious to wrap nodes as happens in a lot of code.

That's why there are dynamic conversions, the Preamble Object converts any
GraphNode to RichGraphNode, instances of the preamble class also convert
Resources (such as UriRefs) to RichGraphNodes.
         *
         * todo: does one really need to create the graph node? Is there a
reason this is passed ike that,
What do you suggest, RichGraphNode not to be a subclass of GraphNode? Why?

         * todo: or was that just a quick hack? If it is because we don't
want to use any of the superclass implementations
Not sure what you're refreing too, RichGraphNode doesn't reimplement any of
the superclass methods
         * todo: then it would be worth creating an interface above
GraphNode and implementing the interface instead...
I see no need for this.


Cheers,
reto

--0016e6d7ee7282b20a049e8a1537--