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 Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:20:27 GMT
Matthew Swift a écrit :
>
>
> On 13/01/10 21:55, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>> Matthew Swift wrote:
>>> On 12/01/10 14:29, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>>
>>> Even if you decide that caching is not required then that's no 
>>> reason to develop an API which prevents you from implementing one in 
>>> future. Using a normal constructor prevents the use of a cache (or 
>>> forces you to use the pimpl idiom). If you extend the API later by 
>>> adding a valueOf method then no existing applications will be able 
>>> to take advantage of the perf improvement unless they are modified 
>>> to use the new static factory method.
>>
>> Matthew, you mentioned good reasons for factory methdods. I think it 
>> is not a big deal to add a one or two factory methods.
>
>
> rootDN/nullDN/emptyDN is an obvious candidate
Yeah. I think that nullDN is a nonsense. rootDN is probably technically 
the correct vision, but I'm not sure that users will understand the 
implication of such a name. I would rather pick emptyDN just because 
it's semantically not tainted (ie, rootDN <=> roodDSE DN), and an empty 
DN can be the base for operations like move, applied in the middle of 
the tree, not at the root (assumong you can add RDN to a DN).
>
> valueOf(String) is the other and perhaps valueOf(ByteString/byte[])
We had a long discussion with Ludovic while in Portland. We have made a 
big mistake one year and a half ago trying to introduce something like a 
Value<?> object (where ? = String or byte[]). I think it's a nonsense 
too. valueOf(String) and valueOf(byte[]) clearly have my preference over 
any other form. No need to use a ByteString, it huld be purely internal.
>
> I don't like having two ways to achieve the same goal, hence my 
> dislike of the DN(String) constructor, especially when users of the 
> method will not automatically inherit performance improvements in 
> future releases.
But for users, DN(String) covers 99% of their usage. This is how they 
created DN with JNDI, and i'm not sure they want something very 
different. Now, internally, othing prevent you to write something like :

public DN(String dnStr) {
  return valueOf( dnStr );
}
>
>>>
>>> Also, on the subject of AVAs - we have the AVA type as an inner 
>>> class in RDN. I'm not particularly happy with this this, but less 
>>> happy with it being a standalone class since AVAs are only used in 
>>> RDNs and may introduce confusion elsewhere. For example, filters 
>>> also use attribute value assertions but these are not the same type 
>>> of object as an AVA even if they have the same name. For example, 
>>> AVAs (in RDNs) do not allow attribute options or matching rules to 
>>> be specified.
>>>
>>> What do you think? Inner class or standalone?
>>
>> It could be an inner class, but should be visible and constructable 
>> from outside. The use case I see is to create an DN or RDN by 
>> specifying the attribute types and values, without having to deal 
>> with escaped characters. We need such functionality in Directory 
>> Studio, when defining the RDN of an entry or when renaming an entry. 
>> The user for example just types "a+b" into the value field, we 
>> construct a new AVA("cn", "a+b") and the AVA implementation should 
>> handle the escaping to "cn=a\+b".
>>
>>
>
> There's no need for an AVA class at all from a construction point of 
> view. For example, you could have an RDN method RDN.addAVA(type, 
> value). The stronger requirement for an AVA class comes when you need 
> to access the AVAs in an RDN since you want to get two values at once 
> - the attribute type and attribute value. It is possible to avoid 
> having an AVA class altogether by having methods like:
>
>    int getAVACount()
>    AttributeType getAVAAttributeType(int index)
>    AttributeValue getAVAAttributeValue(int index)
>    void addAVA(AttributeType, AttributeValue)
>
> One less class is a good thing IMO especially when it's potentially a 
> source of confusion (with filters), but I'm not a big fan of the 
> indexing and the inability to easily iterate over the AVAs. I'm pretty 
> undecided on this one.
I also have in mind serialization and deserialization : having the AVA 
class halps a bt to track down the way it's done.

Now, when you face DN like cn=ACME+gn=whatever, manipulating AVAs is 
convenient, as you can iterate though them instead of using indices.



Mime
View raw message