directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Dn should probably not implement Comparable
Date Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:09:26 GMT
On 2/15/11 8:00 PM, Kiran Ayyagari wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecharny@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the compareTo method has a semantic that probably does not applies to the Dn
>> class : either two DNs are equals, or they are different, but they aren't
>> superior or inferior, except if one is the parent of the other.
>>
>> As we already have a isParent and isChild methods, I suggest we remove the
>> compareTo() methods (which is never used) and not implemen the
>> Comparable<Dn>  interface.
>>
> I suggest we keep this, think of ordering the Entry objects while
> performing an export
> (sorting a huge number of entries won't be the ideal case, but when we
> have a few entries which are fetched in an adhoc manner(i.e without
> performing repetitive one level searches))

The thing is that there is no way to order a list of DNs, as there is no 
such a MatchingRule as DnOrderingMatch. How do you order two DNs which 
RDN don't have the same AttributeType ?

I have checked RFC 4517, and after having read it, I saw that comparing 
two DNs is just meant to check that they are equal, or not. No order is 
implied.


-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny
www.iktek.com


Mime
View raw message