Ersin Er a écrit :
[I had a problem answering to the correct thread. So sorry for double
post.]
My preferences:
interface LdapDN extends Name
class BasicLdapDN implements LdapDN
class ServerLdapDN implements LdapDN
What about DN for client, and ServerDN for server ?
BTW, what is the difference between client (basic) and server versions?
The server wersion will have to handle a Normalized form, whilst the
client do not need it.
If they have different functionality we can design interfaces for them
too :-D
Well, sure. But at a point, no need to duplicate if we have a 1-1
relationship between classes and interfaces. I just think this is bad
practice (IMHO). Interface should be used if you have a behavior to
implement by more than one class.
And I think we need to design most parts of the system with first
interfaces only.
We should try to fulfill JDK naming API, I think.
On 9/3/06, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ersin Er a écrit :
> Yes, I understood you intent. But I think LdapDN can also be an
> interface extending Name. So we can clearly see what it adds to Name.
>
> On 9/3/06, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So let say we have ( --> = extends, --O = implements ) :
interface LdapDN --> interface Name
class ClientDN --O LdapDN
class ServerDN --O LdapDN
wdyt ?
