directory-api mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel LŽcharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DN] Existing API review
Date Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:34:20 GMT
Francois a écrit :
> Le 13/01/2010 12:24, Matthew Swift a écrit :
>> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> I'm just giveng my point of view about the following, I don't think I 
> can be relevant elsewhere:
>
>> Also, I strongly believe that DNs and RDNs and AVAs should be immutable
>> objects (as well as any other low level API type). What do you think?
>
> I will go further : DN, RDN and AVA should be immutable, 
+1
> but Attribute should be immutable too, 
Well, it would be a bit inconvenient when manipulating values...
> and Entry should have at least an immutable DN (and facilities to copy 
> an entry with a new DN or ParentDN at factory level).
If the DN is immutable, entry's DN will be too.
>
> For attribute, the rationnal is that one replace attribute by a new 
> one most of the time, and it's much easier to deal with immutable 
> attribute - that's one of the aspect of UnboundId SDK that I prefer.
Inside the server, having immutable Attribute is not really a problem. 
 From the client POV, I'm not convinced...
>
> For Entry's DN, it's linked to the fact that DN are almost IDs for 
> entries. So, the semantic of such an operation is much likely in two 
> cases:
> - create a copy of an entry with another DN (change RDN but perhaps 
> not parentDN)
> - move an entry (only the parent DN change).
> These two cases (I hope I don't forget other ones) are easily 
> fulfilled througth factory-like method support.
>
>


Mime
View raw message