Many specific exceptions instead of one LdapError

[DenisKnauf]

We need to rescue some exceptions, but because there is only one LdapError-class, we cannot rescue one specific behavior.
So i wrote this patch for using many LdapError-classes but specific exceptions.
All of these exceptions has LdapError as base-class, so it do not break any exception handling.

[RoryO]

Really like this idea but

1. This makes it unable to merge cleanly
2. Specs should be updated to use new exception classes instead of always looking for LdapError classes

[mtodd]

@jch @schaary what are your thoughts on this PR?

[jch]

👍 I dig it. Since the exception classes inherit from a common base class Net::LDAP::LdapError, it gives the caller the option to either rescue for a specific error, or to rescue the general one.

While we're here, how do you guys feel about renaming Net::LDAP::LdapError to Net::LDAP::Error? That capitalization bugs me. We can easily add a deprecation notice and alias the old constant for backwards compatibility until the next major version release.

[schaary]

It looks like you discover a little treasure under the heap of PRs ;)

+1 for renaming Net::LDAP::LdapError to Net::LDAP::Error

[jch]

@DenisKnauf 👍 for proposing this PR. Sorry it took us so long to get to it, but would you be interested in updating it to merge cleanly with master?

[mtodd]

@DenisKnauf any chance you'd like to merge in master and fix conflicts for this? Would really like to get your change merged in!

[DenisKnauf]

At the moment, i haven't Internet, so i can't.
Next month it should be possible.

[mtodd]

@DenisKnauf alternatively, you can add me to your fork as collaborators and I can do it for you! :)

[mtodd]

@DenisKnauf any chance you'll have a moment to fix this? Would love to merge it!

[satoryu]

I and my colleagues have been looking forward to this changes on LdapError 👍
Unfortunately @DenisKnauf seems be not able to have a time to fix the conflict.

I have an idea to take over his work, creating new pull request base on a branch into which @DenisKnauf 's master are merged with the current HEAD of this repo's master, of course resolving the conflict.

@mtodd @jch how do you think the idea?

[mtodd]

@satoryu like @DenisKnauf, I too have not had time to fix this. I'd love for you to take this over and get it to a point where we can merge it! 👍

[jch]

Closing in favor of #183