On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Francois <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27/11/2009 10:05, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >> >> Sure, as much as possible. This is why we picked LdapDn instead of DN, >> and such names. I just have an issue with Attribute, because if we >> want to write a wrapper around JNDI, it will end with ugly package >> bnames to be added in the code to avoid confusion between Attribute >> (jndi) and Attribute (API)... > > I don't think we should sacrifice the general public API > cleanness/homogeneity for the specific JNDI wrapper case. > > What we should be looking for is to have the best, cleanest LDAP API - in > the long term, it is the only one that matters.
You are probably right. > And for the confusion, well I don't think javax.naming.directory.Attribute > brings much of it :) It's just that I don't like to see packages in the code... But it may be just me :) -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
