Marcel Reutegger schrieb:
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.
Agreed.
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?
The client can rely on not having duplicates in it, or alternatively,
the producer doesn't need to take care not to produce them...
Best regards, Julian
