[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-47?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15858837#comment-15858837
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on COMMONSRDF-47:
------------------------------------------
Github user ansell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-rdf/pull/27
Service discovery for other instances of RDFSyntax/Parsers can be done
separately.
The main objection was for users of the RDFSyntax interface to be able to
offer multiple content types and file extensions in addition to the official
versions. They can be implemented by a default method that just returns the
official content type and file extension inside of Commons RDF, but the fact
that the method is available makes it possible to support the use case.
Returning a List, with the first element by convention being the official
version similar to RDF4J may be useful, rather than an unordered Set. However,
that isn't necessary, given they should be using the other methods if they
definitely want the official extension/content type.
> RDFSyntax should be interface, not enum
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: COMMONSRDF-47
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-47
> Project: Apache Commons RDF
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: api
> Affects Versions: 0.2.0
> Reporter: Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Assignee: Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Fix For: 1.0.0
>
>
> [~p_ansell] raises in [pull request
> 25|https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/pull/25#discussion_r85231845]
> {quote}
> Using enum for RDFSyntax is a bad idea unless it overrides an interface and
> the interface is used in method signatures instead of the enum. There are
> many other RDFSyntaxes, and enum (without implementing an interface) is only
> suited to cases where the full set are known a priori.
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
