Stefan Zoerner wrote:
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
...
I do think that we went far too far.
wdyt ?
Let me first say that I really liked the idea of making configuration
of ApacheDS simpler form a user (e.g. administrator) perspective. The
xbean approach did a good job here, the files are shorter and more
expressive.
I will temper my initial mail : xbean has some advantage : it generates
a XSD. But the indirection is still a PITA...
Unfortunately, some ports of the configuration are comparable
complicated to the 1.0 pure Spring world (or even more complex).
For instance:
...
<!-- The desired quality-of-protection, used by DIGEST-MD5 and
GSSAPI. -->
<saslQop>
<value
xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";>auth</value>
<value
xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";>auth-int</value>
<value
xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";>auth-conf</value>
</saslQop>
...
It can be replaced by :
<spring:beans xmlns:spring="http://xbean.apache.org/schemas/spring/1.0";
xmlns:s="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";
<!-- Added NameSpace declaration -->
xmlns="http://apacheds.org/config/1.0";>
...
<saslQop>
<s:value>auth</s:value>
<s:value>auth-int</s:value>
<s:value>auth-conf</s:value>
</saslQop>
Much simpler ...
The question I asked myself when xbean was introduced: Isn't it
possible to use our own namespace and use pure Spring 2.0
functionality for that to make configuration easier? This has been
done with transactions, AOP etc. in Spring itself.
Perhaps we can obtain a comparable result with native Spring features,
and avoid the dependency to xbean.
http://static.springframework.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/extensible-xml.html
May be... This has to be explored.
Whether this will conflict with Emmanuel's requirement to make
configuration easier to parse/edit with Studio -- I have not thought
about that yet.
The thing is that we have one major problem with Spring + xbean : when
you want to debug the server, from the initialization point, it's a real
PITA, as the flow is not know unless you have the server.xml and the 1.0
mapping file open on the same screen (and I don't have a 40" screen on
my laptop ...).
Another point is that we have mixed configuration laoding and
initialization, which is, from my POV, a bad mistake.
I know that some will disagree with me, and it's fine, as soon as I just
express some frsutration I have. That does not mean I'm right ! But I
want to make it clear that if I'm frustrated with what we have, then
there is some chance that new committers will find it frustrating too...
Thanks Stefan !
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
