On 12 avr. 2011, at 14:55, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > My message was not clear enough : > > what I meant is that the messageID should not be passed to the constructor, > as it's not something a user will do. The LdapConnection class will create > this message ID and pass it to the message through the setMessageId( ID ) > method. > > In every place in the API where we want to set the ID (like in DSML or in the > codec) it's the same thing : we cna use the setMessageID(). > > Hope it's clear now ...
Héhé, thanks for clarifying. I thought you wanted to get rid of the ability to set the ID by removing both the constructor and the setter method. Removing the constructor with the message id parameter seems reasonable to me. As long as we can always set it via the setter method, I'm ok with that. Regards, Pierre-Arnaud > On 4/12/11 2:27 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >> Currently, we can inject a messageId in the Message constructors : >> >> public AbandonRequestImpl( final int id ) >> >> I don't think it's a good idea, as we usually generate those id >> automatically (it's an incremental number). >> >> I suggest we don't inject the ID through the setMessageId( int ) if needed, >> as usually we don't need to do that. >> >> Note that it's the same thing for all the requests. >> >> thoughts ? >> > > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com >
