On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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<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 ? > > Never thought it would be this bloody hard. Leave it as is then and just improve the message contained in the exception. This is my 2 cents. -- Best Regards, -- Alex
