On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Kiran Ayyagari <kayyag...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com> > wrote:> > SNIP > LdapAPI is absolutely *critical*. Once it's out, there is no way for us to > > change it, because it will be heavily sued, as it's meant to be a > > replacement for JNDI, and many of the outdated LDAP API. So we have to be > > extraordinary cautious in this area. > > > > However, and that's the good point, we can spend as much time as needed > to > > get LdapAPI 1.0 out, as it won't be a show-stopper for ADS and Studio. It > > doesn't matter if we continue with a shared-0.9.20 in ADS 2.0 or in > Studio > > 2.0, because ADS will be used way more often as a standalone server, or > even > > if it's embedded, the exposed interface will be the core-API part, which > is > > not part of LdapAPI (except a few classes which will need some careful > > review). > > > the LdapAPI is already stable and perfectly shielded from the > internals of shared, so > I see no issue from a user POV cause they are dependent on the > LdapConnection > interface only > > If this is the case then and the client API does not expose any other shared interfaces then we're golden here. -- 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
