Move Net::LDAP::Connection to it's own file

[jch]

This PR moves Net::LDAP::Connection from lib/net/ldap.rb to lib/net/ldap/connection.rb. The benefits are that it follows ruby conventions for class and file names, and makes the file easier to scan. For example, it wasn't immediately clear that the two #search methods in the file were for different objects.

[michaeltwofish]

👍 I've been tripped by #search here too.

[schaary]

@jch - well done, thx! This starts to make the code clearer.

I've discussed with @mtodd in a private chat whether we should unify the test frameworks and finally go for rspec ... do you think you could help us again and switch the test-unit file to an rspec file?

[mtodd]

@schaary I don't think changes in this PR really map well to any specific tests, so those changes should be handled in a separate PR for better review.

I'm 👍 to going ahead with this and following up with separate PRs for tests. @schaary 👌?

[jch]

👍 for unifying to a single test framework. Personally I prefer test/unit
(minitest) to reduce dependencies and as a preference of style, but I'll
save those comments for @mtodd's PR or issue.

On Sunday, October 5, 2014, Matt Todd notifications@github.com wrote:

@schaary https://github.com/schaary I don't think changes in this PR
really map well to any specific tests, so those changes should be handled
in a separate PR for better review.

I'm [image: 👍] to going ahead with this and following up with separate
PRs for tests. @schaary https://github.com/schaary [image: 👌]?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#114 (comment)
.

Jerry Cheung
GitHub https://github.com/jch

[schaary]

Oh - I am looking forward to @mtodd's PR and the discussion there. It's going to be a agile discussion ;)

[mtodd]

Whoops, think this was closed on accident? @schaary

[schaary]

No. The extraction of the class is a good move, the discussion about the test framework is not part of this PR. I am fine with it. You? @mtodd