[ADS 2.0] LdapDN new version

[Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@iktek.com>]

Ersin Er a écrit :

> Yes, I understood you intent. But I think LdapDN can also be an
> interface extending Name. So we can clearly see what it adds to Name.
>
> On 9/3/06, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:


So let say we have   ( --> = extends, --O = implements ) :

interface LdapDN --> interface Name
class ClientDN --O LdapDN
class ServerDN --O LdapDN

wdyt ?

Re: [ADS 2.0] LdapDN new version

[Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>]

Ersin Er a écrit :

> [I had a problem answering to the correct thread. So sorry for double 
> post.]
>
> My preferences:
>
> interface LdapDN extends Name
> class BasicLdapDN implements LdapDN
> class ServerLdapDN implements LdapDN

What about DN for client, and ServerDN for server ?

>
> BTW, what is the difference between client (basic) and server versions?

The server wersion will have to handle a Normalized form, whilst the 
client do not need it.

> If they have different functionality we can design interfaces for them 
> too :-D

Well, sure. But at a point, no need to duplicate if we have a 1-1 
relationship between classes and interfaces. I just think this is bad 
practice (IMHO). Interface should be used if you have a behavior to 
implement by more than one class.

>
> And I think we need to design most parts of the system with first
> interfaces only.

We should try to fulfill JDK naming API, I think.

>
> On 9/3/06, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@iktek.com> wrote:
>
>> Ersin Er a écrit :
>>
>> > Yes, I understood you intent. But I think LdapDN can also be an
>> > interface extending Name. So we can clearly see what it adds to Name.
>> >
>> > On 9/3/06, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So let say we have   ( --> = extends, --O = implements ) :
>>
>> interface LdapDN --> interface Name
>> class ClientDN --O LdapDN
>> class ServerDN --O LdapDN
>>
>> wdyt ?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [ADS 2.0] LdapDN new version

[Ersin Er <er...@gmail.com>]

[I had a problem answering to the correct thread. So sorry for double post.]

My preferences:

interface LdapDN extends Name
class BasicLdapDN implements LdapDN
class ServerLdapDN implements LdapDN

BTW, what is the difference between client (basic) and server versions?
If they have different functionality we can design interfaces for them too :-D

And I think we need to design most parts of the system with first
interfaces only.

On 9/3/06, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@iktek.com> wrote:
> Ersin Er a écrit :
>
> > Yes, I understood you intent. But I think LdapDN can also be an
> > interface extending Name. So we can clearly see what it adds to Name.
> >
> > On 9/3/06, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> So let say we have   ( --> = extends, --O = implements ) :
>
> interface LdapDN --> interface Name
> class ClientDN --O LdapDN
> class ServerDN --O LdapDN
>
> wdyt ?
>
>
>


-- 
Ersin