You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> on 2012/02/03 23:09:01 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1239907 - in /directory/shared/trunk/ldap/model/src:
main/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/Rdn.java test/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/RdnTest.java
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM, <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: elecharny
> Date: Thu Feb 2 22:59:08 2012
> New Revision: 1239907
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1239907&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix DIRAPI-76 : new Rdn( "A=a,B=b" ) now throws an LdapInvalidDnException
>
>
Should the exception not be ... LdapInvalidNameComponent (we can create one
if it does not exist).
Reason I say this is that the whole issue with the non-intuitive
constructor was that the API user was thinking the argument can be a
multi-component relative distinguished name or a DN. LdapInvalidDnException
might not fit here and it might make the user think they have to use a DN
rather than a single name component.
WDYT?
--
Best Regards,
-- Alex
Re: svn commit: r1239907 - in /directory/shared/trunk/ldap/model/src:
main/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/Rdn.java test/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/RdnTest.java
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 2/3/12 11:09 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM,<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Author: elecharny
>>> Date: Thu Feb 2 22:59:08 2012
>>> New Revision: 1239907
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?**rev=1239907&view=rev<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1239907&view=rev>
>>> Log:
>>> Fix DIRAPI-76 : new Rdn( "A=a,B=b" ) now throws an LdapInvalidDnException
>>>
>>>
>>> Should the exception not be ... LdapInvalidNameComponent (we can create
>> one
>> if it does not exist).
>>
>> Reason I say this is that the whole issue with the non-intuitive
>> constructor was that the API user was thinking the argument can be a
>> multi-component relative distinguished name or a DN.
>> LdapInvalidDnException
>> might not fit here and it might make the user think they have to use a DN
>> rather than a single name component.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Rahhh... Not such an easy move. In many many places, we are expecting a
> LdapInvalidDnException. Rdn is considered as a Dn with one single Rdn in
> most of the code.
>
> Question : would it worth the effort to change every part of the code when
> we can simply improve the message contained in the exception ?
>
>
Never thought it would be this bloody hard. Leave it as is then and just
improve the message contained in the exception. This is my 2 cents.
--
Best Regards,
-- Alex
Re: svn commit: r1239907 - in /directory/shared/trunk/ldap/model/src:
main/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/Rdn.java test/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/RdnTest.java
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On 2/3/12 11:09 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM,<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Author: elecharny
>> Date: Thu Feb 2 22:59:08 2012
>> New Revision: 1239907
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1239907&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Fix DIRAPI-76 : new Rdn( "A=a,B=b" ) now throws an LdapInvalidDnException
>>
>>
> Should the exception not be ... LdapInvalidNameComponent (we can create one
> if it does not exist).
>
> Reason I say this is that the whole issue with the non-intuitive
> constructor was that the API user was thinking the argument can be a
> multi-component relative distinguished name or a DN. LdapInvalidDnException
> might not fit here and it might make the user think they have to use a DN
> rather than a single name component.
>
> WDYT?
>
Rahhh... Not such an easy move. In many many places, we are expecting a
LdapInvalidDnException. Rdn is considered as a Dn with one single Rdn in
most of the code.
Question : would it worth the effort to change every part of the code
when we can simply improve the message contained in the exception ?
Or may be we can go for a more drastic change : get rid of the
LdapDnException and rename it LdapNmeException ?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: svn commit: r1239907 - in /directory/shared/trunk/ldap/model/src: main/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/Rdn.java test/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/RdnTest.java
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
On 4 févr. 2012, at 01:52, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/3/12 11:09 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM,<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Author: elecharny
> Date: Thu Feb 2 22:59:08 2012
> New Revision: 1239907
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1239907&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix DIRAPI-76 : new Rdn( "A=a,B=b" ) now throws an LdapInvalidDnException
>
>
> Should the exception not be ... LdapInvalidNameComponent (we can create one
> if it does not exist).
> Or LdapInvalidRdnException. Yes.
>
>
> Sounds good too.
+1
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
>
> Reason I say this is that the whole issue with the non-intuitive
> constructor was that the API user was thinking the argument can be a
> multi-component relative distinguished name or a DN. LdapInvalidDnException
> might not fit here and it might make the user think they have to use a DN
> rather than a single name component.
>
> WDYT?
> I totally agree. The LdapInvalidDnException was picked to have a quick fix for this issue. I was overloaded with many other issues related to the change made in the Rdn constructor fix :
> - DSML parser was not anymore working (a bug in the DSML xml files)
> - some question raised about the ParentIdAnRdn to be double checked (do we support a multiple AVA in a NamingContext, or not)
>
>
> Totally understandable. I just posted this just in case it was not noticed.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> -- Alex
>
Re: svn commit: r1239907 - in /directory/shared/trunk/ldap/model/src:
main/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/Rdn.java test/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/RdnTest.java
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 2/3/12 11:09 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM,<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Author: elecharny
>>> Date: Thu Feb 2 22:59:08 2012
>>> New Revision: 1239907
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?**rev=1239907&view=rev<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1239907&view=rev>
>>> Log:
>>> Fix DIRAPI-76 : new Rdn( "A=a,B=b" ) now throws an LdapInvalidDnException
>>>
>>>
>>> Should the exception not be ... LdapInvalidNameComponent (we can create
>> one
>> if it does not exist).
>>
> Or LdapInvalidRdnException. Yes.
>
>
Sounds good too.
>
>> Reason I say this is that the whole issue with the non-intuitive
>> constructor was that the API user was thinking the argument can be a
>> multi-component relative distinguished name or a DN.
>> LdapInvalidDnException
>> might not fit here and it might make the user think they have to use a DN
>> rather than a single name component.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
> I totally agree. The LdapInvalidDnException was picked to have a quick fix
> for this issue. I was overloaded with many other issues related to the
> change made in the Rdn constructor fix :
> - DSML parser was not anymore working (a bug in the DSML xml files)
> - some question raised about the ParentIdAnRdn to be double checked (do we
> support a multiple AVA in a NamingContext, or not)
>
>
Totally understandable. I just posted this just in case it was not noticed.
--
Best Regards,
-- Alex
Re: svn commit: r1239907 - in /directory/shared/trunk/ldap/model/src:
main/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/Rdn.java test/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/RdnTest.java
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On 2/3/12 11:09 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM,<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Author: elecharny
>> Date: Thu Feb 2 22:59:08 2012
>> New Revision: 1239907
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1239907&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Fix DIRAPI-76 : new Rdn( "A=a,B=b" ) now throws an LdapInvalidDnException
>>
>>
> Should the exception not be ... LdapInvalidNameComponent (we can create one
> if it does not exist).
Or LdapInvalidRdnException. Yes.
>
> Reason I say this is that the whole issue with the non-intuitive
> constructor was that the API user was thinking the argument can be a
> multi-component relative distinguished name or a DN. LdapInvalidDnException
> might not fit here and it might make the user think they have to use a DN
> rather than a single name component.
>
> WDYT?
I totally agree. The LdapInvalidDnException was picked to have a quick
fix for this issue. I was overloaded with many other issues related to
the change made in the Rdn constructor fix :
- DSML parser was not anymore working (a bug in the DSML xml files)
- some question raised about the ParentIdAnRdn to be double checked (do
we support a multiple AVA in a NamingContext, or not)
I'll add the exception.
>
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com