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 20:20:25 GMT
On 2/15/11 9:15 PM, Kiran Ayyagari wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecharny@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> 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.
> how about using the isParent() and isChild() methods for that inside
> the compareTo()
yes, but still it's not possible to compare 2 DNs with the same 
parent... CompareTo() for DNs simply does not make sense :)


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


Mime
View raw message