On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 14:46 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Looks good to me. do we similarly keep the setRelatesTo? and what does > that mean?
+1 to David's proposal .. but I wouldn't keep setRelatesTo(RelatesTo) because that's not needed .. at the point of setting you always have the relationship so might as well just have addRelatesTo(RelatesTo). Basically we just have to refactor all users of setRelatesTo to addRelatesTo. Sanjiva.
