On Mar 30 2011, at 09:07 , Neil Richards wrote: > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 15:09 -0700, Mike Duigou wrote: >> >> Neil, do you have a strong reason or preference for using an anonymous inner >> Object [for NULL]? > > Hi Jason, thanks for your review and suggestion. > > In summary, as using 'new Integer(0)' for NULL would save on having an > extra Class definition, I'm all in favour of adopting your amendment - > thanks once again. > > Mike, are you happy to make this simple modification to the changeset, > or shall I send you an updated version ?
I will make the modification as Jason suggested and commit this issue today. Mike
