I would imagine that the only thing this would change is to make a small number of null checks irrelevant.
+1 for making the behavior more consistent, however, the JavaDocs and release notes should be explicit about this change. On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Georg Henzler <slin...@ghenzler.de> wrote: > Hi Konrad, > > +1 for making the behaviour of NonExistingResource more consistent - I > personally can't think of any places this would break existing code. > > Regards > Georg > > > > On 2016-06-01 15:09, Konrad Windszus wrote: > >> Hi Robert, >> thanks for your input. >> >> >>> I am not sure whether this would confuse existing clients though... >>> >> >> I am also a bit worried about that but the only example I could think >> of is a code trying to create the parent nodes or collecting the >> non-existing ones by checking getParent() for null. >> >> This would be pretty bad style IMHO therefore I would deliberately be >> willing to break that code. I wonder what do others think about >> changing the semantics of getParent() for NonExistingResource and >> probably also SyntheticResource. >> Konrad >> > >
