On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > when I initially started to write the EntryAttribute class, I picked this > name to avoid a confusion with the JNDI Attribute class. bck 2 years ago, it > was important, because we had a hell lot of JNDI code all over the shared > and server code. Mixing both name would have been a nightmare, with package > expended into the source instead of just having the imports. > > Now that we have been able to get rid of most of the JNDI calls, it might be > a good idea to move the name to use Attribute. > > wdyt ? I would say let us keep the existing name, cause 1. personally I like the name (for me, its name says that it represents the attribute of an ldap Entry) 2. we haven't got rid of JNDI completely , some integ tests are heavily depend on JNDI
> > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > > -- Kiran Ayyagari
