On 25/08/2014 08:35, Michael Dürig wrote: > > > On 22.8.14 4:31 , Alex Parvulescu wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Following OAK-2039 there was a discussion around the current design >> of the >> #checkpoint apis. [0] >> >> It looks a bit confusing that you can call the apis to create a >> checkpoint >> and get back a reference but when retrieving it, it might not exist, >> even >> if the calls are back to back. > > Reading the Javadoc carefully this is to be expected. However I think > this could be improved. Either by making the Javadoc for #checkpoint > more explicit about it or by reflecting it in the return value. > > Instead of returning null for the later option we could also return a > constant value representing a not available checkpoint. With that > client code wouldn't need to change but could check the returned value > if desired. > Don't know if I'm understanding you correctly but I think that either we return null or a proper object with error codes/messages. Returning an error as String and having the client coding something like `if (NodeStore.CHECKPOINT_ERROR.equals(checkpoint))` doesn't add any real value versus `if (checkpoint == null)`.
Davide
