Re: Fwd: Re: draft Java-api-12

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 01:30 PM 12/21/00 -0700, Steven Sonntag wrote:


>Rob Weltman wrote:
>
>>   It might be better instead to eliminate the current unsolicited
>> notification methods and instead have methods to add and remove
>> listeners for usolicited notifications. The implementation can then
>> discard unsolicited notifications if there are no listeners. For
>> example (I haven't thought this through completely yet):
>>
>> LDAPConnection
>>
>> public LDAPResponseListener addUnsolicitedNotificationListener(
>> LDAPResponseListener listener )
>>
>> public void removeUnsolicitedNotificationListener(
>> LDAPResponseListener listener )
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
>It seems natural to me that if unsolicited notifications are enabled on
>a
>listener, that the method LDAPListener.getMessageIDs() would include
>message ID 0 in the list of message IDs, and that
>LDAPConnection.abandon(0)
>and LDAPConnection.abandon(listener) could be used to removeUnsolicited
>notifications from a listener or listeners.  This raises some questions.
>
>1) Should getMessageIDs show messageID 0 when unsolicited notification
>are enabled?  (My vote is yes)
>
>2) Should the draft allow abandon to be used to remove unsolicited
>notifications?
>(this means that message ID 0 is treated like a message that never
>completes)
>
>3) If number two is allowed, is removeUnsolicitedNotificationListener()
>necessary?

Is there a API requirement that requests are not generated with
message id 0 (as allowed within the protocol)?

Kurt