On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Stefan Seelmann <[email protected]>wrote:
> I agree that it's not very useful. > > I can imagine that it was required when we had the updn and ndn index > because the underlying B+Tree requires an ordered key. > > Right this is a remnant of that era when the Dn did need the compareTo functionality. Now it's not needed because of the new rdn index replacing these two indices. > But please note that Rdn still needs to implement Comparable because > they are used as part of the key in the RDN index. > > And so the old need is fulfilled by the Rdn class. > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the compareTo method has a semantic that probably does not applies to the > Dn > > class : either two DNs are equals, or they are different, but they aren't > > superior or inferior, except if one is the parent of the other. > > > > As we already have a isParent and isChild methods, I suggest we remove > the > > compareTo() methods (which is never used) and not implemen the > > Comparable<Dn> interface. > > > > Thoughts ? > In theory this sounds perfect. Why don't we try to remove it in practice and see if we no longer need it. If so then we're good. I agree that it makes no sense anymore. Regards, Alex
