Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class : Headsup

2011-02-18 Thread Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot
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,

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class : Headsup

2011-02-18 Thread Stefan Seelmann
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class : Headsup

2011-02-18 Thread Emmanuel Lecharny
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Alex Karasulu
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Alex Karasulu
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 ? >

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
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'

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Alex Karasulu
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Alex Karasulu
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Alex Karasulu
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:

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Alex Karasulu
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Emmanuel Lecharny
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Stefan Seelmann
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Emmanuel Lecharny
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Stefan Seelmann
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:

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-17 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-16 Thread Alex Karasulu
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: >>>

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-16 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-16 Thread Alex Karasulu
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-16 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
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)/

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-16 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
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.

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-16 Thread Alex Karasulu
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

Re: Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-16 Thread Alex Karasulu
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

Some more thoughts about the Dn class

2011-02-16 Thread Emmanuel Lecharny
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