I think it would be interesting to add a method for getting the graph name, btw, null if there is none
Henry On 20 May 2011, at 12:11, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote: > 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/ > > > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
