directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kiran Ayyagari <kayyag...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Dn should probably not implement Comparable
Date Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:15:17 GMT
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()
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>



-- 
Kiran Ayyagari

Mime
View raw message