Thanks Emmanuel.
This is going to be a very clean API. :)
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On vendredi 18 février 2011 at 09:52, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just to inform you that the following modifications has been done
> yesterday :
>
> Removed methods :
>
> Dn(String)
> Dn(SchemaManager,
Thanks Emmanuel.
I think it makes totally sense that you continue with the
modifications. Then we can review the changes live on the code which
is much easier than discussing a single method.
Kind Regards,
Stefan
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just to infor
Hi,
just to inform you that the following modifications has been done
yesterday :
Removed methods :
Dn(String)
Dn(SchemaManager, String)
add(int, Rdn)
add(int, String)
Renamed methods :
isChildOf(Dn) -> isDescendantOf(Dn)
isChildOf(String) -> isDescendantOf(String)
isParentO
On 2/17/11 6:53 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Heads up. Here are some suggested changes on the Dn API. The existing
methods have a (e) prefix. The static methods have a (s) prefix. The added
methods have a (+) prefix. The deleted methods have
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Heads up. Here are some suggested changes on the Dn API. The existing
> methods have a (e) prefix. The static methods have a (s) prefix. The added
> methods have a (+) prefix. The deleted methods have a (-) prefix. The
> renamed methods h
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> On 2/17/11 1:27 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/17/11 12:07 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf ? Or use getAscendant/getDescendant ?
>
As we've reviewed this together, I'm +1 for all the modifications.
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On jeudi 17 février 2011 at 16:10, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Heads up. Here are some suggested changes on the Dn API. The existing methods
> have a (e) prefix. The static methods have a (s) prefix. The add
Heads up. Here are some suggested changes on the Dn API. The existing methods
have a (e) prefix. The static methods have a (s) prefix. The added methods have
a (+) prefix. The deleted methods have a (-) prefix. The renamed methods have a
(r) prefix.
Constructors :
(e)Dn()
(e)Dn(Schem
On 2/17/11 1:27 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
On 2/17/11 12:07 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf ? Or use getAscendant/getDescendant ?
Yeah getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf sounds like it flows better and
clarifies that we'
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> On 2/17/11 12:07 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf ? Or use getAscendant/getDescendant ?
>> Yeah getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf sounds like it flows better and
>> clarifies that we're taking this from the dn the
On 2/17/11 12:07 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf ? Or use getAscendant/getDescendant ?
Yeah getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf sounds like it flows better and
clarifies that we're taking this from the dn the operation is applied
to.
I like it better too. Will rename to use tho
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> On 2/16/11 9:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we have had some convo about the Dn methods last night. Here are some of
>>> the things we discussed and cam
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> On 2/17/11 12:43 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/17/11 12:03 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> On 2/17/11 11:07 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/17/11 10:28 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
One concern: What is the use case of the getAncestorOf/getDesc
On 2/17/11 11:07 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 2/17/11 10:28 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
One concern: What is the use case of the getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf
from the user's point of view? In the server and in studio such
methods are
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> On 2/17/11 10:28 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>> One concern: What is the use case of the getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf
>> from the user's point of view? In the server and in studio such
>> methods are useful (e.g. calculating the local na
On 2/17/11 10:28 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
On 2/17/11 12:43 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
On 2/17/11 12:03 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Emmanuel Léc
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> On 2/17/11 12:43 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/17/11 12:03 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
On 2/17/11 12:43 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
On 2/17/11 12:03 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
On 2/16/11 9:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lech
On 2/17/11 12:43 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
On 2/17/11 12:03 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
On 2/16/11 9:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lech
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> On 2/17/11 12:03 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/16/11 9:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny
wrote:
>>>
On 2/17/11 12:03 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
On 2/16/11 9:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny
wrote:
Hi,
we have had some convo about the Dn methods last night. Here are some of
the things w
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> On 2/16/11 9:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we have had some convo about the Dn methods last night. Here are some of
>>> the things we discussed and cam
On 2/16/11 9:29 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny 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)/
On 2/16/11 9:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny 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.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny
> 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 cumb
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny 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 d
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
28 matches
Mail list logo