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 in

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

Reply via email to