Hello Reto, 2011/5/20 Reto Bachmann-Gmür <[email protected]>
> 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. I agree this sounds like a big change; I just thought it'd be good if we could avoid casts from Resource on getNode() also enhancing type safety when declaring a GraphNode. But I am not proposing to just go forward with it, just discuss if we'd like it :-) > > 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, Subtypes are ok for me as they may come as a better solution in the short time. > 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. > Regards, Tommaso > > 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/ > > > >
