jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: 3.1.3.1 Removing Items
Date Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:00:07 GMT
Mark Waschkowski wrote:
> ...
> You may call it a gimmick, but thats the way it has been from day one. As
> well, there is a difference between the data model, how data is stored, and
> api. The original poster is trying to discuss altering of the spec wrt
> setting of null values, and the hows of the implementation is just that,
> implementation, and it could be implemented one way or the other. IMHO, the
> behavior is less than ideal and should be changed as suggested by the OP.
> ...

I think *two* things were proposed:

(1) Not having property.setValue(null) mean the same things as 
property.remove().

(2) Allowing "null" to be a value of a property.

With respect to (1), I agree that this is confusing. Except for 
backwards compatibility, I would vote for making this an error (letting 
the impl throw an exception).

With respect to (2), I disagree that this would be an improvement. It 
would make the property data model incompatible with many other models.

Best regards, Julian

Mime
View raw message