directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1239907 - in /directory/shared/trunk/ldap/model/src: main/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/Rdn.java test/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/name/RdnTest.java
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:13:24 GMT
On 2/3/12 11:09 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM,<elecharny@apache.org>  wrote:
>
>> Author: elecharny
>> Date: Thu Feb  2 22:59:08 2012
>> New Revision: 1239907
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1239907&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Fix DIRAPI-76 : new Rdn( "A=a,B=b" ) now throws an LdapInvalidDnException
>>
>>
> Should the exception not be ... LdapInvalidNameComponent (we can create one
> if it does not exist).
>
> Reason I say this is that the whole issue with the non-intuitive
> constructor was that the API user was thinking the argument can be a
> multi-component relative distinguished name or a DN. LdapInvalidDnException
> might not fit here and it might make the user think they have to use a DN
> rather than a single name component.
>
> WDYT?
>
Rahhh... Not such an easy move. In many many places, we are expecting a 
LdapInvalidDnException. Rdn is considered as a Dn with one single Rdn in 
most of the code.

Question : would it worth the effort to change every part of the code 
when we can simply improve the message contained in the exception ?

Or may be we can go for a more drastic change : get rid of the 
LdapDnException and rename it LdapNmeException ?

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


Mime
View raw message