directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: [Client API] Bind Operation
Date Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:09:49 GMT
Martin Alderson wrote:
> This sounds much more reasonable than having overloads for everything.  I use jLDAP quite
a lot at work and I always shudder when I look a the javadoc for it.  It looks far more complex
then it really is, with so many overloads for each operation.  Their bind operation has 12
overloads!  Okay, 4 are deprecated, but still...
> I was thinking of something more along the lines of having two overloads for every operation,
one with just the required arguments and the other with an extra Options argument which would
be an object containing all options specific to that operation.  The options would include
the constraints, the controls and even the listener for non-blocking calls.
> An example:
>   BindOptions bindOptions = new BindOptions();
>   bindOptions.setPassword(password);
>   bindOptions.setTimeLimit(10000);
>   bindOptions.setControls(controls);
>   connection.bind(userDN, bindOptions);

I like this BindOption class, it's much better than LDAPConstraints. But 
I think it should be associated with the BindRequest object, to keep the 
bind() method as simplest as possible. Using your sample, that would gives :

  BindOptions bindOptions = new BindOptions();
  BindRequest bindRequest = connection.createBindRequest();
  bindRequest.setOptions( bindOptions );
  bindRequest.setName( userDN );
  bindRequest.setPassword( password );

  connection.bind( bindRequest );

For a simple bind, it would be much simpler :

  connection.bind( userDN, password );

> One thing that could be done to make it easier for the user to specify these extra arguments
is to use chainable setters as popularised by jQuery (I think!) which could give us something
>   connection.bind(userDN, new BindOptions().setPassword(password).setTimeLimit(10000).setControls(controls));

Yuk ... Never liked it... but it may be just me ;)

cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message