Unico Hommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> -Adding a setSourceProperty() method to the >> SourceInspector interface >>> >>> Already have it on my local copy. :-) >> >> Cool! So I leave this to you :-) >> > > Actually I think it's better to define a subinterface named > SourceDescriptor that defines these methods. This would create the > distinction between read-only properties and read/write properties > nicely. Otherwise the read-only inspectors would need to throw some > kind of exception for those modifying methods. > > This would also mean that SourceInspectorManager becomes > SourceDescriptionManager and throws an exception when it is asked to > perform a persistent operation for a read-only property. To allow > clients to asses whether a SourceProperty is read-only I propose to > add an isModifiable() method on the SourceProperty. To avoid that > users think SourceProperty.setValue() will persist their > modifications perhaps it is better to remove that method.
All this makes sense IMO. > > A related change I need to make is described here: > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23699 this will not > only improve performance of querying for a specific property but is > prerequisite for setting properties via the SourceDescriptionManager. I'm not sure. What exactly is the meaning of the returned Strings? Is it all properties "supported" by a particular SourceInspector implementation? What if it supports any within a particular namespace? What if it support any within any namespace? How would that be represented? Guido
