On 4 févr. 2012, at 01:52, Alex Karasulu wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:47 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 > 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). > Or LdapInvalidRdnException. Yes. > > > Sounds good too.
+1 Regards, Pierre-Arnaud > > 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? > I totally agree. The LdapInvalidDnException was picked to have a quick fix > for this issue. I was overloaded with many other issues related to the change > made in the Rdn constructor fix : > - DSML parser was not anymore working (a bug in the DSML xml files) > - some question raised about the ParentIdAnRdn to be double checked (do we > support a multiple AVA in a NamingContext, or not) > > > Totally understandable. I just posted this just in case it was not noticed. > > -- > Best Regards, > -- Alex >
