Re: [Shared] API Design Questionnaire #1
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.comwrote: On 1/29/11 10:38 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote: [X] - (c) interface = AddRequest simple API exposed implementation = AddRequest*Impl* not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder* We're applying option 'C' right now. I'm torn but think A might suite us better for the long term, and for any situation. You also know what's an interface and what's not although the IDE automatically shows you this stuff on the package/class browser. This is my opinion for a low-level API, which 1:1 maps LDAP terminology to the Java API. I think we should additional have a simplified API where the user don't need to deal with request and response objects at all. BTW: We have this discussion again and again ;-) We really need to decide a consistent naming. I think we already discussed it more than once, and we all agreed on this convention. I'm not sure we want to rehash this again every 2 years :/ When there's a push to release a 1.0 of an API, we need to make the API consistent. I can do this myself but the community way is to have a discussion. If you do not want to discuss this feel free not to participate, or say you don't care. I don't see that anyone said that the API development should not be community driven. In shared and apacheds we currently us a mix of the *Impl* suffix and the *Default/whatever* prefix for classes. I only count two interfaces with the *I* prefix, that is probably caused because they were moved from studio to shared. In studio there are many more *I* prefixed interfaces, which was inspired by the Eclipse naming conventions. But afaik we never used *I* prefix in shared or apacheds. Oh, I just searched for *I* prefixed files, and now there are 14 more, why that? $ find shared -name I[A-Z]*.java | cut -d / -f 9- shared/dsmlv2/IAction.java shared/dsmlv2/IGrammar.java shared/ldap/codec/controls/ppolicy/IPasswordPolicyRequest.java shared/ldap/codec/controls/ppolicy/IPasswordPolicyResponse.java shared/ldap/codec/controls/replication/syncDoneValue/ISyncDoneValue.java shared/ldap/codec/controls/replication/syncInfoValue/ISyncInfoValue.java shared/ldap/codec/controls/replication/syncmodifydn/ISyncModifyDn.java shared/ldap/codec/controls/replication/syncRequestValue/ISyncRequestValue.java shared/ldap/codec/controls/replication/syncStateValue/ISyncStateValue.java shared/ldap/codec/ICodecControl.java shared/ldap/codec/IControlFactory.java shared/ldap/codec/IDecorator.java shared/ldap/codec/IExtendedOpFactory.java shared/ldap/codec/ILdapCodecService.java shared/ldap/codec/ITestCodecControl.java shared/ldap/codec/ITestControl.java Kind Regards, Stefan
Re: [Shared] API Design Questionnaire #1
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Stefan Seelmann seelm...@apache.orgwrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: On 1/29/11 10:38 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote: [X] - (c) interface = AddRequest simple API exposed implementation = AddRequest*Impl* not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder* We're applying option 'C' right now. I'm torn but think A might suite us better for the long term, and for any situation. You also know what's an interface and what's not although the IDE automatically shows you this stuff on the package/class browser. This is my opinion for a low-level API, which 1:1 maps LDAP terminology to the Java API. I think we should additional have a simplified API where the user don't need to deal with request and response objects at all. BTW: We have this discussion again and again ;-) We really need to decide a consistent naming. I think we already discussed it more than once, and we all agreed on this convention. I'm not sure we want to rehash this again every 2 years :/ When there's a push to release a 1.0 of an API, we need to make the API consistent. I can do this myself but the community way is to have a discussion. If you do not want to discuss this feel free not to participate, or say you don't care. I don't see that anyone said that the API development should not be community driven. I did not suggest anyone said that. If you read above I am saying I have no choice but to post and share with the community rather than do it myself. -- 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
Re: [Shared] API Design Questionnaire #1
On 1/30/11 7:07 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Stefan Seelmannseelm...@apache.orgwrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Emmanuel Lecharnyelecha...@gmail.com wrote: On 1/29/11 10:38 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote: [X] - (c) interface = AddRequest simple API exposed implementation = AddRequest*Impl* not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder* We're applying option 'C' right now. I'm torn but think A might suite us better for the long term, and for any situation. You also know what's an interface and what's not although the IDE automatically shows you this stuff on the package/class browser. This is my opinion for a low-level API, which 1:1 maps LDAP terminology to the Java API. I think we should additional have a simplified API where the user don't need to deal with request and response objects at all. BTW: We have this discussion again and again ;-) We really need to decide a consistent naming. I think we already discussed it more than once, and we all agreed on this convention. I'm not sure we want to rehash this again every 2 years :/ When there's a push to release a 1.0 of an API, we need to make the API consistent. I can do this myself but the community way is to have a discussion. If you do not want to discuss this feel free not to participate, or say you don't care. I don't see that anyone said that the API development should not be community driven. I did not suggest anyone said that. If you read above I am saying I have no choice but to post and share with the community rather than do it myself. We have to be careful in our phrasing. Or we should be careful in the way we understand things. The *I* notation in shared has been added temporarily in order to ease the refactoring, and should be removed in trunk. Again, injecting them in trunk was probably a wrong move, and should have been done in a branch. We all know that... Ok, assuming that this was just a misunderstanding, I guess we can move on. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
Re: [Shared] API Design Questionnaire #1
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote: Hi community, Now that we're coming close to finishing up the shared refactoring we have to make some choices. Not all these choices have major impacts but some might. In the past we could do what we liked and change our minds etc. Now with a 1.0 of the shared libraries as the future mother of all Java LDAP APIs we're going to have to live with our choices. To opine, just place an 'X' in an option [ ] box. (1) ModifyRequest has a bunch of methods that were recently added to perform the same operations that you use the Modification interface for. This is redundant in my opinion and adds more unnecessary surface area. We don't need it and don't need an optional path to do the same thing confusing our users. I suggest removing them. [ ] Yes - get rid of extra optional methods [X ] No - keep the extra optional methods [ ] --- - I don't care about this stuff I think the extra methods makes it much easier to construct a ModifyRequest, one line of code instead of three lines: ModifyRequest request = ...; request.replace(mail, value1, value2, value3); is equivalent to ModifyRequest request = ...; EntryAttribute attribute = new DefaultEntryAttribute((mail, value1, value2, value3); Modification mod = new DefaultModification(ModificationOperation.REPLACE, attribute); request.addModification(mod); IMO those are very close to LDIF syntax, I like them. But it makes sense to rename the methods: - remove - addRemoveModification - add - addAddModification - replace - addReplaceModification Additional those methods should return the created Modification object. At last we may remove the addModification() methods. (2) Interfaces verses simple/basic classes implementing them have been something I've swayed back and forth on. Here are the options but note I am just using AddRequest as an example. [ ] - (a) interface = *I*AddRequest simple API exposed implementation = AddRequest not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder* [ ] - (b) interface = AddRequest simple API exposed implementation = *Simple*AddRequest not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder* [X] - (c) interface = AddRequest simple API exposed implementation = AddRequest*Impl* not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder* [ ] - (d) interface = AddRequest simple API exposed implementation = *Basic*AddRequest not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder* [ ] - (e) I pick the fat lady with the pink tutu We're applying option 'C' right now. I'm torn but think A might suite us better for the long term, and for any situation. You also know what's an interface and what's not although the IDE automatically shows you this stuff on the package/class browser. This is my opinion for a low-level API, which 1:1 maps LDAP terminology to the Java API. I think we should additional have a simplified API where the user don't need to deal with request and response objects at all. BTW: We have this discussion again and again ;-) We really need to decide a consistent naming. (3) JNDI remnants are somewhat still present even if we've gotten rid of most of them. In the model interfaces for Control, ExtendedRequest, and ExtendedResponse (IntermediateResponse as well but this has nothing to do with JNDI) we have exposed access to ASN.1 encoded data. I think this is a big mistake to do in the public API. Controls and extended operation interfaces should simply expose parameters/properties leaving the rest up to the CODEC to handle. There should be no need to get or set the entire ASN.1 blob for the control or extended operation's request response pair. What good does it do anyway? It's just opening the door for users to incorrectly alter properly encoded ASN.1 data causing problems. I think the getValue() setValue() methods remained after we ran screaming away from JNDI. But it seems these interfaces remained and now they're a liability. Where manipulation of the binary ASN.1 data is needed we can leave this up to the CODEC under a decorator to do. I recommend removing these, what do you think? [X] Yes - Remove them, they are more bad then good [ ] No - Don't remove them, I like using em [ ] --- - I don't give a rat's a** I see you already removed the methods, sorry for not responding in time... Kind Regards, Stefan
[Shared] API Design Questionnaire #1
Hi community, Now that we're coming close to finishing up the shared refactoring we have to make some choices. Not all these choices have major impacts but some might. In the past we could do what we liked and change our minds etc. Now with a 1.0 of the shared libraries as the future mother of all Java LDAP APIs we're going to have to live with our choices. To opine, just place an 'X' in an option [ ] box. (1) ModifyRequest has a bunch of methods that were recently added to perform the same operations that you use the Modification interface for. This is redundant in my opinion and adds more unnecessary surface area. We don't need it and don't need an optional path to do the same thing confusing our users. I suggest removing them. [ ] Yes - get rid of extra optional methods [ ] No - keep the extra optional methods [ ] --- - I don't care about this stuff (2) Interfaces verses simple/basic classes implementing them have been something I've swayed back and forth on. Here are the options but note I am just using AddRequest as an example. [ ] - (a) interface = *I*AddRequest simple API exposed implementation = AddRequest not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder* [ ] - (b) interface = AddRequest simple API exposed implementation = *Simple*AddRequest not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder* [ ] - (c) interface = AddRequest simple API exposed implementation = AddRequest*Impl* not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder* [ ] - (d) interface = AddRequest simple API exposed implementation = *Basic*AddRequest not so simple internal use implementation = AddRequest*Decoder* [ ] - (e) I pick the fat lady with the pink tutu We're applying option 'C' right now. I'm torn but think A might suite us better for the long term, and for any situation. You also know what's an interface and what's not although the IDE automatically shows you this stuff on the package/class browser. (3) JNDI remnants are somewhat still present even if we've gotten rid of most of them. In the model interfaces for Control, ExtendedRequest, and ExtendedResponse (IntermediateResponse as well but this has nothing to do with JNDI) we have exposed access to ASN.1 encoded data. I think this is a big mistake to do in the public API. Controls and extended operation interfaces should simply expose parameters/properties leaving the rest up to the CODEC to handle. There should be no need to get or set the entire ASN.1 blob for the control or extended operation's request response pair. What good does it do anyway? It's just opening the door for users to incorrectly alter properly encoded ASN.1 data causing problems. I think the getValue() setValue() methods remained after we ran screaming away from JNDI. But it seems these interfaces remained and now they're a liability. Where manipulation of the binary ASN.1 data is needed we can leave this up to the CODEC under a decorator to do. I recommend removing these, what do you think? [ ] Yes - Remove them, they are more bad then good [ ] No - Don't remove them, I like using em [ ] --- - I don't give a rat's a** -- 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
