2013/2/21 Ian Boston <[email protected]>: > 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.
Yes, I think that's the better option - I'll clarify the javadocs. For example, the jcr resource tests explicitely test this behaviour. > > 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) > I wouldn't go the string array way unless we have a real good reason for this. So far the use cases I know are either getting the direct super type (for script resolution) or checking if a resource is of some type. What about naming the method getParentResourceType() ? Regards Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
