directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Seelmann <>
Subject Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class
Date Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:07:18 GMT
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <> wrote:
> On 2/17/11 10:28 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>> One concern: What is the use case of the getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf
>> from the user's point of view? In the server and in studio such
>> methods are useful (e.g. calculating the local name for ACI handling).
>> But does the end user of the API really need those methods? I mean we
>> should avoid to put methods into the Dn class that is only/mostly used
>> in server and studio. Maybe a DnUtils class with static methods for
>> advanced DN processing would help?
> Good point. I can see some case where you need to split the DN in two parts,
> for instance if you access two servers looking for an entry for which you
> have the name. For instance, if you have two ldap server, one in US and one
> in FR, you may have an entry present as "cn=John Doe, dc=acme, c=us" or
> "cn=John Doe, dc=acme, c=fr", you may want to get the ancestor to know in
> which server the entry is stored into.

Hm, in that case you need to know the exact left-part (in that case
"cn=John Doe, dc=acme") in order to call the getAnchestor() method,
right? In that case a getAnchestor(1) would be more useful.

> Know, we can also provide some helper class to do that, but I'm afraid users
> will 'torture' the DN instead of using the DnUtils class, simply because hey
> won't know that such a class exists.
> Any opinion about the add() vs concatenate() methods ?

What about getChild(), analog to getParent()?
Ok, get methods normally don't required a parameter. So a
createChild() would also be better.

Kind Regards,

View raw message