jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Waschkowski" <mwaschkow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 3.1.3.1 Removing Items
Date Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:42:25 GMT
Hi Julian,

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).

Confusing? Yes! At least we agree on one thing. :)

With respect to (2), I disagree that this would be an improvement. It
> would make the property data model incompatible with many other models.
>
Well, I would probably be ok with various means of how this would be
handled, as long as the property was kept. But, since you see it as a single
operation anyway, I don't think I can discuss this further with you.

Julian said:
"Somehow. I'm strongly in favor of closing that door again, that is,
making XPath required again.

We already see how this change affects the discussion: "if it's not
compatible anyway, then let's re-start all design considerations from
scratch".
Yes, keeping xpath would be great! And I think that you are dramatizing
here, not "all design considerations from scratch", just a handful that seem
peculiar. Isn't that what a public review should involve?

Best,

Mark

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