directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot ...@marcelot.net>
Subject Re: Some few classes that are probably stored at the right place...
Date Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:20:54 GMT

On 30 mars 2011, at 19:14, Alex Karasulu wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa@marcelot.net> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On 30 mars 2011, at 14:24, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa@marcelot.net>
wrote:
>> Hi Emmanuel,
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> SearchScope could be in 'org.apache.directory.shared.ldap.model.message'.
>> LdapURL could in 'org.apache.directory.shared.ldap.model.url'.
>> 
>> Shouldn't we also rename 'LdapURL' as 'LdapUrl' to match other class names (like
Dn, Rdn, Oid, etc.)?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Pierre-Arnaud
>> 
>> 
>> My same thoughts. LdapUrl should go into message pkg too though - why have an extra
package with just one or two classes?
> 
> Readability and longevity I guess.
> We might need to add more classes related to LdapUrl later, like an URL factory or more.
> Having this extra package ensures that we won't be tempted to move it afterwards, breaking
compatibility in client applications.
> 
> 
> This does make sense, the longevity argument. As you say who knows what else will creep
up around LdapUrl. OK I am on the same page now especially after your comments below showing
there no longer is a dependency from the 'message' package.
>  
> At first, I was hesitating between either 'org.apache.directory.shared.ldap.model' or
'org.apache.directory.shared.ldap.model.url'.
> 
> Are you picking 'message' because LdapUrl is somehow related to referrals?
> 
> Yep that was my motivation for selecting 'message'. 
>  
> I've just verified and none of the classes under the 'message' package uses LdapUrl (not
even 'Referral').
> Other than that, I don't really see the link between the classes under this package and
the LdapUrl class...
> 
> 
> Oh that's a surprise to me - guess we may be calculating it then populating with Strings.
I thought there would naturally be a dependency there, my bad.

It surprised me a lot too. I was really expecting it to be used there.
Maybe we should fix that, or at least open a JIRA about it...

> 
> Best,
> Alex


Mime
View raw message