directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kiran Ayyagari <ayyagariki...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Client API : Delete request
Date Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:48:33 GMT

> Why not have a delete() and a deleteTree() method and do away with the 
> deleteChildren parameter?  The parameter permutes the number of method 
> overloads 
yeap, an excellent catch

and I think it's just more clear to use another method name
> all together due to the nature of the operation. Here's what this looks 
> like:
> 
> delete( LdapDN )
> deleteTree( LdapDN )
> delete( LdapDN, DeleteListener )
> deleteTree( LdapDN, DeleteListener )

+1, I liked it

> 
> I don't see the point to having delete take the DeleteRequest. I guess 
> this is for convenience in the codec?
the reason is to let the user add any controls if he wants to and also all operations
have their respective operation type XXXRequest object to support this.

>     is the following list of methods enough then ? :
>     delete( String [, DeleteListener] )
>     delete( LdapDN [, DeleteListener] )
>     delete( DeleteRequest [, DeleteListener] )
> 
> 
> Hmmm if I want to delete a tree of entries then I will have no choice 
> but to wrap my LdapDN in a DeleteRequest which I must now create, just 
> to add the control to delete the subtree. 

I think with a method like deleteTree() the user is no longer forced to create this request
as we assume that this is 'deleteChildren' and add the supported controls(or let the client
do recursive delete)
so this last method 'delete( DeleteRequest [, DeleteListener] )' just stays there for convenience
of adding any special
controls user want to(as said above)

thanks Alex

Kiran Ayyagari

Mime
View raw message