jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paco Avila <pav...@git.es>
Subject Re: 3.1.3.1 Removing Items
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:01:43 GMT
El vie, 20-07-2007 a las 10:38 +0300, Alexandru Popescu ☀ escribió:
> On 7/20/07, Thomas Mueller <thomas.tom.mueller@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There is a difference between an empty String and null.
> >
> > > if a property was set to null, my xml representation showed nothing at
> > > all (no property name or value). This isn't acceptable
> >
> > Why don't you set it to an empty String?
> >
> > > Well, I agree that having an empty string value and being absent (and having
> > > a null value) are all completely different things. However, I do see removal
> > > of the property itself as a side effect of setting the property to null.
> >
> > Removing the property by setting it to null is not a 'side effect'. It
> > is the only effect.
> >
> > > Me too. Making it mandatory even better :-)
> >
> > That would be a solution. Setting it to null could just throw a
> > NullPointerException.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> 
> I don't think I agree on this. As you said: null and empty strings are
> distinct values. Another distinct case is: innexistance, which is not
> synonymous with null or empty. Atm you cannot store a null value
> inside JCR -- and for solving this one must usually create a null-like
> value.
> 
> The OP is suggesting that this is a spec issue and storing null values
> should be allowed. But doing so results in API behavioral changes,
> because currently property.setValue(null) is equivalent to remove.

Yes, property.setValue(null) equals to remove() is strange for me too.



Mime
View raw message