This may be something we can just toss. Also shared-ldap is getting seriously huge: we need to figure out something with respect to this before a 1.0.
Alex On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>wrote: > On 12/13/10 5:09 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecha...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> we currently have a shared-ldap-jndi module containing two classes : >>> - JndiUtils >>> - UniversalContextFactory >>> >>> The fist one of those class is duplicated in shared-ldap, as we need many >>> of >>> the methods it contains for the SP sub-system. We can't remove it from >>> shared-ldap, as shared-ldap-jndi depends on shared-ldap. >>> >>> I'm now wondering if it makes sense to have a separate module for JNDI, >>> and >>> if it wouldn't be better to merge it back into shared-ldap ? >>> >>> I'm just asking as I'm trying to solve >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-67. The fact is that we >>> still need JNDI inside the server, and we won't be able soon to get >>> totally >>> rid of it. >>> >>> thoughts ? >>> >> I looked into shared-ldap and there are 106 imports of "javax.naming". >> As shared-ldap isn't really JNDI free I think we should move the one >> remaining UniversalContextFactory to shared-ldap. >> > Yes, makes sense. This is why I suggested to merge shared-ldap and > shared-ldap-jndi completely > > > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > > -- Alex Karasulu My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/ Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu
