On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
we have had some convo about the Dn methods last night. Here are some of
the things we discussed and came with :
o the getPrefix(N)/getSuffix(N) are cumbersome, and not easy to
manipulate. The main issue is that they depend on the RDN order, which is
the opposite as what people are used to manipulate. Everytime you have to
get a prefix from a Dn, you always wonder what the position should be, and
if it's 0 based or 1 based...
We propose to replace those methods by getParent(Dn) and
getDescendant(Dn). Let me give you an example :
// A DN
Dn dn = new Dn( "cn=test,ou=server,ou=directory,dc=apache,dc=org" );
// Get the right part (equivalent to getprefix( 2 ) )
Dn parent = dn.getParent( "cn=test,ou=server,ou=directory" ); // returns
"dc=apache,dc=org"
// Get the left part (equivalent to getSuffix( 3 ))
Dn descendant = dn.getDescendant( "ou=directory,dc=apache,dc=org" ); //
returns "cn=test,ou=server"
o The Add method is a bit annoying to remove, because first, the JNDI
Name interface has such a method, and people are used to it, second removing
it means we have to add some more constructors line Dn( Dn, Rdn... ). I
agree that someone doing something like :
Dn dn = new Dn( "dc=apache,dc=org" );
dn.add( "ou=directory" );
will expect that the dn is now "ou=directory,dc=apache,dc=org", when it's
unchanged.
This is really troublesome... What about rename it concatenate() ?
Thoughts ?
Sounds good. But how about this:
// not showing full Rdn but an index value representing the actual
rdns in the dn for pos clarity
Dn dn = new Dn( “9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0” );
dn.getAncestorDn( “9, 8, 7, 6” );
=> “5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0”
