On 1/5/11 5:33 PM, Kiran Ayyagari wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecha...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
if by 'API' if you are referring to client-api then it is already schema aware,
note that this schema-awareness in client-api is not essential, it is optional
Damn, I'm lagging then :)
It is required in cases where you build an app which need to do
perform some operations which require access to schema info e.x Studio
and replication subsystem
Ok, so we are more "stable" than I thought then !
- decouple the network layer from the API. Currently, we use MINA, but some
other might want to use Grizzly.
agreed, but should be a post 2.0 effort
That's an option, true.
- adding a better support for Extended Operations and Controls. The set of
controls and extOps we are supporting is not enough.
isn't this mainly a server thing
Sadly, no. Users want to be able to send some server specific ExtOps or
Controls. Those guys are not defined by any common specification, it's
even worse, each server may have its own set of controls or ExtOps.
However, we may define some extension point allowing us to design a
specific control or extOps (for the client side) which is included in
the API.
This may not be considered as a blocker for a 1.0, I don't know.
It deserves some discussion...
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
