On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > same here
> 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 >> > > -- Kiran Ayyagari
