On 22 February 2013 02:25, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote: > > The final question is the first point in this mail - do we leave the > implementations of Resource#getResourceSuperType() as is (= returning > null if they don't know it) or do we change that to call the > ResourceResolver#getResourceSuperType?
Yes please, leave as is returning null. I can think of many situations where I have checked that method expecting it yo be the property and not wanting to bind to the Node interface (because the resource might not be a Node). BTW, I thing the getEffectiveSuperType is good as it communicates the result is not the same as the property. Better might be to think of the results in terms of inheritance and give real isolation between the concepts. Newbees are going to find this area confusing (and I might have just proved myself to be a newbee). What about getInheritedType or allow for future expansion with String[] getInheritedTypes(Resource resource) ? Ian In the first case, we need to > clarify our docs, in the second we need to change the impls (and > clarify the docs) > > Regards > Carsten > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > [email protected]
