On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi guys, > > following one thread started more than a month ago, I would like to get > your opinion about the DeleteRequest implementation. > > We currently have the following methods (Thanks to Kiran who implemented > them) : > > delete( LdapDN ) > delete( LdapDN, boolean deleteChildren ) > delete( LdapDN, DeleteListener ) > delete( LdapDN, boolean deleteChildren, DeleteListener ) > delete( DeleteRequest ); > delete( DeleteRequest, DeleteListener ); > Why not have a delete() and a deleteTree() method and do away with the deleteChildren parameter? The parameter permutes the number of method overloads and I think it's just more clear to use another method name all together due to the nature of the operation. Here's what this looks like: delete( LdapDN ) deleteTree( LdapDN ) delete( LdapDN, DeleteListener ) deleteTree( LdapDN, DeleteListener ) I don't see the point to having delete take the DeleteRequest. I guess this is for convenience in the codec? If so then might this not be best a package friendly method overload? > > If we exclude the last parameter, used only for asynchronous requests, we > have some other options : > > - delete( String ) // instead of a LdapDN > - the boolean (deleteChildren) is associated with a control, we can pass it > to the DeleteRequest Object. > > is the following list of methods enough then ? : > delete( String [, DeleteListener] ) > delete( LdapDN [, DeleteListener] ) > delete( DeleteRequest [, DeleteListener] ) > Hmmm if I want to delete a tree of entries then I will have no choice but to wrap my LdapDN in a DeleteRequest which I must now create, just to add the control to delete the subtree. -- Alex Karasulu My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/ Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org
