On 2/15/11 11:12 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
(back to list, I think Emmanuel sent it by accident to me)
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny<[email protected]> wrote:
Ok, after some cleanup, I come with two sets of restricted constructors :
Empty Dn constructors :
- Dn()
- Dn( SchemaManager)
Constructors having a DN (as a string) :
- Dn(String)
- Dn(SchemaManager, String)
Constructors having RDNs (as strings) :
Dn(String...)
Dn(SchemaManager, String...)
I don't understand what's the difference between those two groups if one codes
new Dn("abc")
How does the runtime distinguish the two constructors. I have to read
the spec again...
The Dn(String) uses a DN as a string, and the Dn(String...) is a bit
more convoluted, as it almost anything which is a String, concatenate
them to form a valid DN.
Cnstructors having a set of RDNs :
- Dn(Rdn)
- Dn(SchemaManager, Rdn)
I guess you mean "Rdn..."
Yep.
The other constructors are most certainly spurious at this point :
Dn(Rdn child, Dn parent)
can be replaced by :
parent.add( child );
as the Dn is an immutable class.
Is it ok for all of you ?
I find it a bit inconvenient. If I see that a class has an "add()"
method I expect that when using that method that the object is
modified. I think I'd prefer to get rid of all the "add", "addAll" and
"remove" methods that pretend mutability.
You are probably right. The problem is that if we want to remove the
add() method, then we need to define a constructor like :
Dn dn = new Dn( "dc=example,dc=com" );
Dn newDn = new Dn( dn, "sn=test" );
Do we want that instead of :
Dn dn = new Dn( "dc=example,dc=com" );
Dn newDn = dn.add( "sn=test" );
?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
