On 2/3/12 11:09 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM,<[email protected]> wrote:
Author: elecharny
Date: Thu Feb 2 22:59:08 2012
New Revision: 1239907
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1239907&view=rev
Log:
Fix DIRAPI-76 : new Rdn( "A=a,B=b" ) now throws an LdapInvalidDnException
Should the exception not be ... LdapInvalidNameComponent (we can create one
if it does not exist).
Reason I say this is that the whole issue with the non-intuitive
constructor was that the API user was thinking the argument can be a
multi-component relative distinguished name or a DN. LdapInvalidDnException
might not fit here and it might make the user think they have to use a DN
rather than a single name component.
WDYT?
Rahhh... Not such an easy move. In many many places, we are expecting a
LdapInvalidDnException. Rdn is considered as a Dn with one single Rdn in
most of the code.
Question : would it worth the effort to change every part of the code
when we can simply improve the message contained in the exception ?
Or may be we can go for a more drastic change : get rid of the
LdapDnException and rename it LdapNmeException ?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
