Why not have a delete() and a deleteTree() method and do away with the
deleteChildren parameter? The parameter permutes the number of method
overloads
yeap, an excellent catch
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 )
+1, I liked it
I don't see the point to having delete take the DeleteRequest. I guess
this is for convenience in the codec?
the reason is to let the user add any controls if he wants to and also all
operations
have their respective operation type XXXRequest object to support this.
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.
I think with a method like deleteTree() the user is no longer forced to create
this request
as we assume that this is 'deleteChildren' and add the supported controls(or
let the client do recursive delete)
so this last method 'delete( DeleteRequest [, DeleteListener] )' just stays
there for convenience of adding any special
controls user want to(as said above)
thanks Alex
Kiran Ayyagari
