Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4F2CE8A4.5090504@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:13:24 +0100
From: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
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
References: <20120202225908.A31382388900@eris.apache.org>
 <CADwPi+FQCZkSZuXsAhTDze3tq_CKUcqZsSC+2Zoikx1L0MjELw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADwPi+FQCZkSZuXsAhTDze3tq_CKUcqZsSC+2Zoikx1L0MjELw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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 Lécharny
www.iktek.com