Victor Mote wrote:
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,


I thought that my input on this question was primarily informational. If I wanted to vote -1 on your proposal, I would. I did not, and still do not, intend to vote on that proposal, because 1) my primary involvement is with alt.design, and 2) I don't understand it. (I will post again shortly on the slowness of my understanding in general.) If your proposal is deep sixed, it will be by those who are more intimately involved in HEAD, and who fully understand what you are trying to achieve. My comments about the use of integers are based entirely on my experience with alt.design, which I thought might be helpful in coming up with a modified properties handler in HEAD.

Peter
--
Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>



Reply via email to