>I'd rather not make this part of the Tree API. Shouldn't this better got into >TreeUtil?
I followed the convention as used in org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.api.PropertyState#GET_NAME. However I can move it to TreeUtil also. Chetan Mehrotra On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 7.8.13 12:05, chet...@apache.org wrote: >> >> Modified: >> jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/api/Tree.java >> >> URL:http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/api/Tree.java?rev=1511233&r1=1511232&r2=1511233&view=diff >> >> ============================================================================== >> --- >> jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/api/Tree.java >> (original) >> +++ >> jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/api/Tree.java >> Wed Aug 7 10:05:37 2013 >> @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ >> */ >> package org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.api; >> >> +import com.google.common.base.Function; >> + >> import javax.annotation.CheckForNull; >> import javax.annotation.Nonnull; >> import javax.annotation.Nullable; >> @@ -330,4 +332,19 @@ public interface Tree { >> */ >> void removeProperty(@Nonnull String name); >> >> + /** >> + * Mapping from a Tree instance to its name. >> + */ >> + Function<Tree, String> GET_NAME = >> + new Function<Tree, String>() { >> + @Override @Nullable >> + public String apply(@Nullable Tree input) { >> + if (input != null) { >> + return input.getName(); >> + } else { >> + return null; >> + } >> + } >> + }; >> + >> } > > > I'd rather not make this part of the Tree API. Shouldn't this better got > into TreeUtil? > > Michael
