Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
* modifyDn( String entryDn, String newRdn, boolean deleteOldRdn )
* modifyDn( String entryDn, String newRdn, String newParentDn, boolean
deleteOldRdn )
* modifyDn( LdapDN entryDn, Rdn newRDN, boolean deleteOldRDN )
* modifyDn( LdapDN entry, Rdn newRDN, LdapDN newParentDn, boolean
deleteOldRDN )
* modifyDn( ModifyDNRequest modDnRequest, ModifyDnListener listener )
Sounds good. I'm wondering if offering methods like :
rename( LdapDN oldDN, RDN newRdn)
move( LdapDN oldDN, LdapDN newDn)
would be better or not ?
same here, and finally thought of going with the 'modifyDn' name as per RFC but
really prefer the move and rename methods.
what do you say again, should we go for these names? from my side +1.
Want to hear from others too, who might have used different client libraries.
Also, I think it's probably better to have the same method without the
deleteOldRdn flag (it's not really frequently used, and it can default
to true).
Last, not least, accepting String could be cool, but we can extend the
API later.
yeah, the list of overloaded methods for this operation is higher than any other
operation.
Delete operation:
* delete( String dn )
* delete( LdapDN dn )
* delete( DeleteRequest delRequest, DeleteListener listener )
Loks fine to me.
What about another method to allow deletion of children ?
deleteChildren( String/LdapDN dn) ?
+1
thanks Emmanuel
Kiran Ayyagari
