Mailing-List: contact api-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: api@directory.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4B0FA1D8.4080803@sun.com>
References: <4B0C0163.9040607@nextury.com>
	 <6D888D9C-17B1-40F2-B642-C5621256FF46@sun.com>
	 <4B0FA1D8.4080803@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:14:23 +0100
Message-ID: <d45b08f00911270214u777cb78cv4077d20944784878@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Let's start for real ?
From: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org>
To: api@directory.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>
> Yes - I'm on the list now - I joined yesterday afternoon. :-)

Welcome ! I hope that Sun LDAP developpers will stay at sun long enouh
to complete this API definition (I just read that Jean-Fran=E7ois Arcand
will leave Sun on dec. 4th... What a loss :/ ). Anyways, that's life
...

>
> I agree with Ludo's comment above regarding naming. Something we've been
> trying to do is to follow the RFC naming as much as possible as well as
> following Java naming conventions. Sometimes there is a choice of name to
> use (e.g. LDAPDN from RFC4511 which looks ugly all uppercase, or DN from
> RFC4512 which looks silly in mixed case but good in uppercase). We've cho=
sen
> DN in this case for simply for reasons of familiarity: most people refer =
to
> distinguish names as DNs - not LDAP DNs.

This is a road I also walk : all the messages definition in ADS are
closely defined following the RFCs, even if it sounds silly sometime
(Object instead of DN, etc...)

I proposed Dn just because it was a mix between something easy to use
(better than LdapDN : whatever, is there any DN outside of the LDAP
world ? ;), and because of the Sun JAVA naming convention. But
considering that it's a composite name (Distinguished Name), DN fits
well too.

Ok, let's stay with DN.
RDN too, I guess.


> I've also been cutting and pasting bits of the RFC text into the Javadoc
> where possible and linking to it, so that people feel "closer" to the
> standard. I think, if possible, we should take a similar approach in this
> joint LDAP SDK effort, assuming that we are allowed to quote bits of RFC
> since they are Copyrighted? Obviously the Javadoc would look pretty ugly =
if
> we had to put "Copyright (C) The Internet Society" everywhere.

Well, if quoted correctly, this is not an isssue. I guess that a
mention of the copyright in a notice.txt should be fine.


--=20
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L=E9charny
www.iktek.com