Le 03/08/2017 à 18:43, Radovan Semancik a écrit : > On 08/03/2017 02:03 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: >> We have released the Apache LDAP API 1.0 a few weeks ago. This was a >> great acomplishment, after years of efforts. It was not perfect, but >> still, 'good enough' is probably the correct description. > > I would say this is more than a correct observation :-) > >> ... So let's thing bigger : If we go for a 2.0, I also suggest we >> move to >> Java 8 only for this version (I mean, Java 8 and higher). ApacheDS will >> also switch to Java 8 and will use this API 2.0 in M25, and teh next >> Studio release should also use the API 2.0 and ApacheDS with API 2.0. > > I completely support this proposal. > >> I would also suggest we switch to git for the API, now that 1.0 is out. >> SVN is outdated, and it's quite an anchor for us anyway (I have to use >> svn *and* git daily, it makes things more complex...). Nor sure we >> should'nt move to git for all teh projects, but startng wih teh API >> sounds reasonable atm. In any case, I'll write another mail for this >> change. > > Yes, yes, yes! Then sooner the better. > > I have few more things to add: > > I would like to personally work on the schema error handling and > reporting. The API currently logs every schema problem as an error - > even if it can live with the situation. This is really annoying when > using the API with dirty LDAP servers. The logs are flooded with error > messages and there is no easy way how to get rid of them. So I would > like to improve this part of code and make error reporting > optional/configurable/pluggable. > > But ... it is likely that any reasonable changes in the code are going > to break compatibility with API 1.0. Unless we want to maintain very > ugly and complex compatibility code. Therefore I suggest that we do > NOT stick to a strict API compatibility between 1.0 and 2.0. This is > not a problem for me, as I can quickly adapt my client application. > But I'm aware that it might be a problem for other people. Therefore I > would like to know opinions of the community regarding API 1.0->2.0 > compatibility.
2.0 is not guarentiing an API compatibility with 1.0. However, I think we ought to write down a migration guide. So I think we can bork everything we want, up to a point of course. -- Emmanuel Lecharny Symas.com directory.apache.org