directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <>
Subject Re: [shared-ldap] Changes and questions on LdifUtils
Date Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:13:12 GMT
This might help ...  I noticed the svn URL below was foobar.


On Nov 11, 2007 12:11 AM, Alex Karasulu <> wrote:
> Why is my email now getting formatted for me :(.  Let me try to put
> this email together without adding my own line breaks.
> ---------------------------------------
> Hi Emmanuel,
> I started working on the ChangeLog service. As I started to work on it
> I began to use the LdifUtils.reverseXXX methods that you were kind
> enough to write for me.  I had a few issues and made some changes to
> it but I want to make sure these were OK with
> you.  I also have a few questions about a couple things ...
> First here are a set of my changes to the LdifUtils file and it's test case:
> Could you look at it while answering some questions for me?
> (1) I saw you used AddRequest, DelRequest, ModifyRequest, and
> ModifyDnRequest beans to encapsulate the parameters in a single
> argument to these methods.  I felt that this would couple the request
> objects with the operation so I broke
> down this single parameter into several parameters.  This way I did
> not have to build these objects just to get the reverse LDIF. Is this
> OK?
> (2) Do we need to make the Entry take multiple Controls for operations
> instead of just one?
> (3) Do we need to make the Entry take an LdapDN and not a String?  I'm
> thinking this may be more efficient since on the server we'll try to
> parse and renormalize the dn when attempting to revert to a snapshot.
> (4) In LdifUtils.reverseModifyDN() the original code seemed to hard
> code setting the deleteOldRdn property on the LDIF entry it was
> generating rather than using the value from the ModifyDnRequest
> argument.  Was wondering if this was in fact a
> bug? I presumed it might be and while breaking up ModifyDnRequest into
> pieces I added the
> deleteOldRdn boolean parameter.  I use this parameter now instead of
> calling entry.setDeleteOldRdn( true ) always.
> Note that after I did this I noticed some test cases started to fail.
> I fixed it but I don't know I trust how I did it.  Could you review
> these changes to reverseModifyDN for me?  I don't trust myself.
> Thanks,
> Alex
> P.S. I might have the ChangeLog working by tonight - at least to test
> reverting which only uses add and delete operations.

View raw message