On 27/11/2009 10:05, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Sure, as much as possible. This is why we picked LdapDn instead of DN, and such names. I just have an issue with Attribute, because if we want to write a wrapper around JNDI, it will end with ugly package bnames to be added in the code to avoid confusion between Attribute (jndi) and Attribute (API)...
I don't think we should sacrifice the general public API cleanness/homogeneity for the specific JNDI wrapper case.
What we should be looking for is to have the best, cleanest LDAP API - in the long term, it is the only one that matters.
And for the confusion, well I don't think javax.naming.directory.Attribute brings much of it :)
-- Francois ARMAND http://fanf42.blogspot.com
