directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [ADS 2.0] LdapDN new version
Date Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:36:43 GMT
Ersin Er a écrit :

> [I had a problem answering to the correct thread. So sorry for double 
> post.]
>
> My preferences:
>
> interface LdapDN extends Name
> class BasicLdapDN implements LdapDN
> class ServerLdapDN implements LdapDN

What about DN for client, and ServerDN for server ?

>
> BTW, what is the difference between client (basic) and server versions?

The server wersion will have to handle a Normalized form, whilst the 
client do not need it.

> If they have different functionality we can design interfaces for them 
> too :-D

Well, sure. But at a point, no need to duplicate if we have a 1-1 
relationship between classes and interfaces. I just think this is bad 
practice (IMHO). Interface should be used if you have a behavior to 
implement by more than one class.

>
> And I think we need to design most parts of the system with first
> interfaces only.

We should try to fulfill JDK naming API, I think.

>
> On 9/3/06, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@iktek.com> wrote:
>
>> Ersin Er a écrit :
>>
>> > Yes, I understood you intent. But I think LdapDN can also be an
>> > interface extending Name. So we can clearly see what it adds to Name.
>> >
>> > On 9/3/06, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So let say we have   ( --> = extends, --O = implements ) :
>>
>> interface LdapDN --> interface Name
>> class ClientDN --O LdapDN
>> class ServerDN --O LdapDN
>>
>> wdyt ?
>>
>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message