On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <email@example.com>
On 2/3/12 11:09 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
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.
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).
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.
Question : would it worth the effort to change every part of the code when we can simply improve the message contained in the exception ?
Never thought it would be this bloody hard. Leave it as is then and just improve the message contained in the exception. This is my 2 cents.