Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-api-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 74797 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2010 14:47:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 19 Jul 2010 14:47:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 26977 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jul 2010 14:47:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-api-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 26939 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jul 2010 14:47:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact api-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: api@directory.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list api@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 26931 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jul 2010 14:47:40 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:47:40 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.50] (HELO mail-ew0-f50.google.com) (209.85.215.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:47:33 +0000 Received: by ewy4 with SMTP id 4so1727564ewy.37 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:47:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ojFLY0JHKUAfG+L+OM55Te09dvNfU6f0IREP3rqlZKg=; b=hgAjW6kVyv2jGsuQqN/HvVq6jZB1BSKpyAnsq2HNbjN6Z8+cd5emBZ6KIxU/61A16o oItxdPNoJer6bZM5xUhTi9FDWc16dOqBWqJYm32n6NhAstxjpAtXGo9citUl1WqYvTYi JByXWIiz5cXSBQp8xDx2FsEcJWMzQBPZhLJ7U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=GK2IxPSaIGg4wPrK/7vJ76Bx20hJ4aPiQJhqXicfIoAybomzJDosqo4ZlQ4WgOF+HU oKkQtsY1yclgaH0MHYBokDgyEkYKCtGI7/lbleisl1R27kEqVQt+mwXy3VfENFN6BYRa Q4zMoQCrDdh1IznH+pWxEV9RXkcyMC25LmrYk= Received: by 10.213.20.4 with SMTP id d4mr4561401ebb.94.1279550832794; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emmanuel-lecharnys-MacBook-Pro.local (lon92-10-78-226-4-211.fbx.proxad.net [78.226.4.211]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z55sm48058443eeh.21.2010.07.19.07.47.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C4465F0.7060804@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:49:20 +0200 From: Emmanuel Lecharny Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Thunderbird/3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: api@directory.apache.org Subject: About operation result Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, long time, no see :) I have a proposal about the way we handle the operation results. Currently, every operation is returning a Response, and if we want to know if the operation has been successful, we have to check the LdapResult field. This is not very convenient. Assuming that when we have issued a synchronous operation, we are waiting until we get a response, why can't we have those operations throwing a LdapException ? For async operations, we can also make that the XXXFuture.get() method throw the same exception. thoughts ? -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel L�charny www.iktek.com