Mark Waschkowski wrote:
...
You may call it a gimmick, but thats the way it has been from day one. As
well, there is a difference between the data model, how data is stored, and
api. The original poster is trying to discuss altering of the spec wrt
setting of null values, and the hows of the implementation is just that,
implementation, and it could be implemented one way or the other. IMHO, the
behavior is less than ideal and should be changed as suggested by the OP.
...
I think *two* things were proposed:
(1) Not having property.setValue(null) mean the same things as
property.remove().
(2) Allowing "null" to be a value of a property.
With respect to (1), I agree that this is confusing. Except for
backwards compatibility, I would vote for making this an error (letting
the impl throw an exception).
With respect to (2), I disagree that this would be an improvement. It
would make the property data model incompatible with many other models.
Best regards, Julian
