Angela Schreiber wrote:
> ...
Questions:
1) Should we update the Javadoc to clarify that this is what it is
expected?
yes.
2) Should we remove one of the signatures, because the distinction
wasn't useful after all?
rather not.
you shouldn't be able to modify the value of a property that
doesn't exist any more... that might happen if the client
is not up-to-date.
however the spi-correspondence of Node.setProperty (means: add
the property if missing or change its value if it exists)
should work then.
Ah, you mean:
- addProperty should succeed even though the property already exists, but
- setValue should continue to fail when the property does not exist yet?
BR, Julian
