On 1/28/11 5:58 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
Hi community,
Now that we're coming close to finishing up the shared refactoring we have
to make some choices. Not all these choices have major impacts but some
might. In the past we could do what we liked and change our minds etc. Now
with a 1.0 of the shared libraries as the future mother of all Java LDAP
APIs we're going to have to live with our choices.
To opine, just place an 'X' in an option [ ] box.
(1) ModifyRequest has a bunch of methods that were recently added to perform
the same operations that you use the Modification interface for. This is
redundant in my opinion and adds more unnecessary surface area. We don't
need it and don't need an optional path to do the same thing confusing our
users. I suggest removing them.
[ ] Yes - get rid of extra optional methods
[X] No - keep the extra optional methods
[ ] --- - I don't care about this stuff
But I would change their names. They are confusing. Be aware that I'm
not 100% convinced that those methods are *really* important, so I may
change my opinion later (to 'remove them')
(2) Interfaces verses simple/basic classes implementing them have been
something I've swayed back and forth on. Here are the options but note I am
just using AddRequest as an example.
[X] - (a)
interface = *I*AddRequest
simple API exposed implementation = AddRequest
not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder*
[X] - (c)
interface = AddRequest
simple API exposed implementation = AddRequest*Impl*
not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder*
We're applying option 'C' right now. I'm torn but think A might suite us
better for the long term, and for any situation. You also know what's an
interface and what's not although the IDE automatically shows you this stuff
on the package/class browser.
I do think that *I* is better for users, as it gives them a clue about
the fact that's is an interface.
In any case, if we pick this option, we have to do it for all the code base.
Right now, I suggest we stay on (c)
(3) JNDI remnants are somewhat still present even if we've gotten rid of
most of them. In the model interfaces for Control, ExtendedRequest, and
ExtendedResponse (IntermediateResponse as well but this has nothing to do
with JNDI) we have exposed access to ASN.1 encoded data. I think this is a
big mistake to do in the public API.
Never had the energy to get rid of those. One of the reasons was that we
used those classes inside the server (in the SP part).
But, yes, we must get rid of them. There is an existing JIRA for such an
action, btw.
Controls and extended operation interfaces should simply expose
parameters/properties leaving the rest up to the CODEC to handle. There
should be no need to get or set the entire ASN.1 blob for the control or
extended operation's request response pair. What good does it do anyway?
It's just opening the door for users to incorrectly alter properly encoded
ASN.1 data causing problems. I think the getValue() setValue() methods
remained after we ran screaming away from JNDI. But it seems these
interfaces remained and now they're a liability. Where manipulation of the
binary ASN.1 data is needed we can leave this up to the CODEC under a
decorator to do.
I recommend removing these, what do you think?
[X] Yes - Remove them, they are more bad then good
[ ] No - Don't remove them, I like using em
[ ] --- - I don't give a rat's a**
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
