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<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. > >> 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
