EndzeitBegins commented on PR #8102: URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/8102#issuecomment-1839332687
Yes, that's what I was concerned about and why I didn't use an overload in the first draft. If we do not backport this change, maybe we can introduce this as a breaking change for 2.x and add an deprecation for calling the function with `null` in 1.x? As far as I understand there is no reason to call it with `null` anyway, as it does nothing. The only use case I can image where calling it with `null` makes sense is to reset a default value copied from a different PropertyDescriptor. However, that isn't what's happening. Maybe we should add a `clearDefaultValue` for that, similar to the existing methods for other fields. While accepting an `Object` avoids the breaking change, I think it makes the interface less easy to understand. Personally I prefer strongly (tightly) types APIs where applicable. I would prefer the deprecation approach. If that's not feasible I'd rather go with the different name than accepting any type, but that's just my gut feeling. What are your thoughts on this @markap14? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@nifi.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
