same here
apart from that "Node" is a term used in JCR and i don't want
to see another Node interface in the stack that makes things
complicated.. it would then be:
Jcr-Node -> Tree -> Oak-Node
that looks really bad.
regards
angela
On 27/06/14 11:54, "Michael Dürig" <mdue...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>On 25.6.14 4:12 , Davide Giannella wrote:
>> // the name can be changed
>> interface Node {}
>> interface NodeBuilder extends Node {}
>> interface NodeState extends Node {}
>
>I'm not in favour of this for the reasons Jukka brought forward in his
>reply. Having the explicit distinction between mutable and immutable is
>very valuable as it is a very basic aspect of Oak's fundamental design.
>Also while it might seem convenient to pass Node instances around I fear
>we will be seeing "if (node instanceof NodeState) {..." pretty soon
>afterwards.
>
>When I faced situations where I needed to convert between builder/state
>all the time it was sometimes an indication that I could improve the
>design.
>
>Michael
