On 1/5/11 4:48 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Kiran Ayyagari<kayyag...@apache.org> wrote:
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.
I will not be as optimistic, sadly. There are a few things we can
improve in the LdapAPI, even if it has demonstrated to be stable when we
used it in Studio (yes, you heard me : Studio is now entirely based on
the Ldap API !!!)
Here is a list of things I think we should add in Ldap API :
- make all the API schema aware. This is quite a big part of the job. It
has started, we already have a DnFactory, but it's not finished
- decouple the network layer from the API. Currently, we use MINA, but
some other might want to use Grizzly.
- adding a better support for Extended Operations and Controls. The set
of controls and extOps we are supporting is not enough.
It's not *that* big, but at least, it will take a couple of month to get
those things done. As you can see, none of those things are impacting
the server, though it's a bit blocking for the API release.
Unless we consider those things as features we can add after the 1.0
release.
It's still an open discussion at this point.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
