+1 Agreed on everything.
Regards Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot On dimanche 13 février 2011 at 15:00, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > > > > 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 >
