Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de
 designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <45420215.5040607@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:56:53 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de;
 rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: SPI: usage of java.util.Properties in interfaces
References: <4540B3F1.6060301@gmx.de> <4540BFCA.7070907@day.com>
 <4540C436.1070307@gmx.de> <4541B15E.6040808@gmx.net>
 <4541C1C0.6010001@gmx.de> <4541F2D9.7070001@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <4541F2D9.7070001@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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