Julian Reschke wrote:
Marcel Reutegger schrieb:
I think both approaches have their disadvantages. Using a map requires
casting to Strings (we currently have to stick with 1.4, I think) and
Properties class exposes methods like store and load which are useless
(or even dangerous).
Well, SPI already uses generic Collections in one other place, so I
really don't buy that one :-)
we tried to avoid casting where it was possible with reasonable effort. e.g.
introducing a separate interface for a type safe QName collection seems overkill.
Speaking of which, is there a particular reason why
QNodeTypeDefinition.getDependencies returns a Collection, not a Set?
because we didn't see a need for a Set. a collection is IMO sufficient. what is
the benefit of a Set over a Collection for a client?
regards
marcel
