Peter B. West wrote: > If we go towards integer representation, properties in the API will > always be represented by integers. By looking at this particular > signature, we are not locking ourselves in. We can add other signatures > if the need arises, but they can be extensions of the basic call. > > The above call does not return an int or an Integer, but a PropertyValue. > > public PropertyValue getPropertyValue(int property) > > is, in fact, the signature from FONode.java in alt.design.
OK. I'll interpret this as a firm -1 on my API proposal, which is sufficient to deep-six it. I think it will be a net benefit for the project for me to withdraw from the remainder of the Properties discussion. Victor Mote
