I think it is very straight forward to add a generic type to graphnode. It needs changing lots of code to prevent warning, in most cases i think we have to add a <?> or <Resource>, the situation where we actually have a method declared to return an objetc with a concrete type param are relatively seldom.
What motivates the change? Graphnode is a convenience object, where not all methods are usable for every instance. Rather than having generics we could also just have 3 or 4 subtypes, in this cas we could not just have more concrete return types for getNode but also have methods that only apply to a specifc type. But again, seeing where you think the change would bring concrete benefits would make it easier to discuss the proposal. Cheers, reto ----- Original message ----- > > On 20 May 2011, at 00:13, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > > > Hi all, > > as discussed in CLEREZZA-537 it may be worth having GraphNodes use > > generics to add something like "T extends Resource" parameter allowing > > easiest subject type retrieving (avoiding useless casts, as said by > > Henry); I plan to create a patch tomorrow so that anyone can review it > > and we can discuss it (in a new issue). > > Regards, > > Tommaso > > +1 for me. Be interested to see how it works out. > > Henry > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ >
