I just don't see the point to do the work twice, but if it makes
someone happy... :-)
/Janne
On 25 Feb 2009, at 23:25, Andrew Jaquith wrote:
I think if Harry is offering to simply change method signatures that
return raw Collection types into concrete ones, that would be just
dandy. So +1 for that.
I also agree that when we make WikiEngine an interface (in whatever
package we eventually select), we take only the worthiest of worthy
methods when we do that. So +1 for that, too.
The two aren't mutually exclusive: in the short term, if Harry is
willing to do the Collection method signatures, I certainly won't
discourage him. :)
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Janne Jalkanen
<[email protected]> wrote:
Kinda. We should review each method whether it a) should be there
in 3.0,
and b) whether it makes sense to return something else than a
Collection.
My preferred way would be to make WikiEngine an interface, and only
take
those methods that we feel to be "worthy" into it.
/Janne
On 25 Feb 2009, at 22:18, Harry Metske wrote:
Hi,
the WikiEngine (and other classes) currently have methods
returning raw
type
Collections, causing compile warnings.
Any objections if I change those to strong typed ones (mostly
Collection<String> ) ?
regards,
Harry
