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 2011/03/23 16:56:48 UTC
isSchemaAware() : ( was: Re: svn commit: r1084531 - in /directory: )
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:41 PM, <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> o Renamed the isNormalized() method to isSchemaAware()
>
Just a thought ...
I know we all started talking in terms of schema awareness but wondering if
isSchemaContrained or isSchemaEnabled better describes what's happening
here.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Alex
Re: isSchemaAware() : ( was: Re: svn commit: r1084531 - in /directory:
)
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On 3/23/11 4:56 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:41 PM,<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> o Renamed the isNormalized() method to isSchemaAware()
>>
> Just a thought ...
>
> I know we all started talking in terms of schema awareness but wondering if
> isSchemaContrained or isSchemaEnabled better describes what's happening
isSchemaEnabled is ok too. hasSchema() ?
The problem is that it's now months we are talking about schema
awareness, and the doco reflects this now. I'm a bit reluctant to change
that now...
Also note that this is just one method which will not be used
frequently, IMO.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com