> > > > The Dn(String, String, byte[], List<Rdn>) constructor is only used inside > > the server, and I don't think we really need it. I suggest to remove it. > > +1, if possible >
To be chekced... > > > Thoughts ? > > The Dn(Dn) constructor, I think that is useless and should be removed. > It's a copy constructor. IMO, you are right. Doing a dn.clone() is enogh. > > So as a result we will have the following constructors, right? > Dn(String...) > Dn(Rdn...) > Dn(SchemaManager, String...) > Dn(SchemaManager, Rdn...) > Dn(SchemaManager, Dn) > We ned also the Dn() and Dn( SxchemaManager). The Dn(SchemaManager, Dn) is probably useless... > There is also an constructor I am missing: to create an DN based on a > parent DN and the child RDN. For example > Dn(Rdn child, Dn parent) > Dn(SchemaManger, Rdn child, Dn parent) > Right. Convenient constructors... > > Maybe an insane idea, but what about a all-you-can-eat constructor > Dn(Object...) > Dn(SchemaManger, Object...) > where the objects can be of type String, Dn, or Rdn? That would allow > maximal flexibility when constructing an DN. Sometimes you have the > parent as Dn object and the attribute type and value as string, then a > simple > Dn parentDn = ...; > new Dn(schemaManger, "ou", "groups", parentDn); > would work. > Hmmm... I have doubts about this kind of constructor... -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
