The most logical difference would be that a Set tells you that the elements stored in it will be unique while a Collection might permit you to introduce duplicates.
-Tako On 10/27/06, Marcel Reutegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
