jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: SPI: usage of java.util.Properties in interfaces
Date Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:56:53 GMT
Marcel Reutegger schrieb:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Marcel Reutegger schrieb:
>>> I think both approaches have their disadvantages. Using a map 
>>> requires casting to Strings (we currently have to stick with 1.4, I 
>>> think) and Properties class exposes methods like store and load which 
>>> are useless (or even dangerous).
>>
>> Well, SPI already uses generic Collections in one other place, so I 
>> really don't buy that one :-)
> 
> we tried to avoid casting where it was possible with reasonable effort. 
> e.g. introducing a separate interface for a type safe QName collection 
> seems overkill.

Agreed.

>> Speaking of which, is there a particular reason why 
>> QNodeTypeDefinition.getDependencies returns a Collection, not a Set?
> 
> because we didn't see a need for a Set. a collection is IMO sufficient. 
> what is the benefit of a Set over a Collection for a client?

The client can rely on not having duplicates in it, or alternatively, 
the producer doesn't need to take care not to produce them...

Best regards, Julian



Mime
View raw message