On 4 févr. 2012, at 01:52, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <email@example.com>
Or LdapInvalidRdnException. Yes.
On 2/3/12 11:09 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM,<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Should the exception not be ... LdapInvalidNameComponent (we can create one
Date: Thu Feb 2 22:59:08 2012
New Revision: 1239907
Fix DIRAPI-76 : new Rdn( "A=a,B=b" ) now throws an LdapInvalidDnException
if it does not exist).
Sounds good too.
I totally agree. The LdapInvalidDnException was picked to have a quick fix for this issue. I was overloaded with many other issues related to the change made in the Rdn constructor fix :
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.
- DSML parser was not anymore working (a bug in the DSML xml files)
- some question raised about the ParentIdAnRdn to be double checked (do we support a multiple AVA in a NamingContext, or not)
Totally understandable. I just posted this just in case it was not noticed.