NodeTypeDefinition.getDeclaredPropertyDefinitions() contract weirdness!?

[Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>]

Hi,

The contract for NodeTypeDefinition.getDeclaredPropertyDefinitions() 
says: "In implementations that support node type registration, if this 
NodeTypeDefinition object is actually a newly-created empty 
NodeTypeTemplate, then this method will return null."

Why null and not an empty array? Is there a case supporting this 
behaviour or is this just the implementation leaking into the spec.?

There is even a test case 
(NodeTypeCreationTest.testEmptyNodeDefinitionTemplate) which 
specifically tests this part of the contract.

Specifically requiring null asks for additional null checks and 
complicates the implementation and usage. Here is what I had to do to 
make NodeTypeCreationTest.testEmptyNodeDefinitionTemplate pass:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1384683

While not terribly complex still weird.

Michael

Re: NodeTypeDefinition.getDeclaredPropertyDefinitions() contract weirdness!?

[Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>]

On 14.9.12 11:46, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Why null and not an empty array? Is there a case supporting this behaviour
>> or is this just the implementation leaking into the spec.?
>
> IIRC the idea was to distinguish between the cases where there are no
> definitions (empty array) and where no definition information is yet
> available (null, the template is still being constructed).

Hmm ok that's what I though. So these are expected to return null until 
getPropertyDefinitionTemplates() has been called for the first time. In 
other words: you need to call getPropertyDefinitionTemplates() to add an 
empty list of property definitions. Still weird ;-)

Michael


>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>

Re: NodeTypeDefinition.getDeclaredPropertyDefinitions() contract weirdness!?

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org> wrote:
> Why null and not an empty array? Is there a case supporting this behaviour
> or is this just the implementation leaking into the spec.?

IIRC the idea was to distinguish between the cases where there are no
definitions (empty array) and where no definition information is yet
available (null, the template is still being constructed).

BR,

Jukka Zitting