jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tako Schotanus" <quinte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: SPI: usage of java.util.Properties in interfaces
Date Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:50:18 GMT
The most logical difference would be that a Set tells you that the elements
stored in it will be unique while a Collection might permit you to introduce
duplicates.

-Tako

On 10/27/06, Marcel Reutegger <marcel.reutegger@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> > 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?
>
> regards
>   marcel
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message