From api-return-203-apmail-directory-api-archive=directory.apache.org@directory.apache.org Mon Sep 06 07:31:03 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-api-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 85597 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2010 07:31:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2010 07:31:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 10450 invoked by uid 500); 6 Sep 2010 07:31:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-api-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 10406 invoked by uid 500); 6 Sep 2010 07:31:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact api-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: api@directory.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list api@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 10398 invoked by uid 99); 6 Sep 2010 07:31:01 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:31:01 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of pajbam@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.44] (HELO mail-ww0-f44.google.com) (74.125.82.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:30:53 +0000 Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so6101536wwj.1 for ; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:30:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:content-type :mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=BJpG80X8I3fuioQcxDklablFxAKLKqkVnFTHcyu7SZs=; b=qXdrzjol1AW84R2nvIP8XwQr4IBu6eWDDQ3AGN32MHUH2GikWhV8noFk/Lwt4BvaxQ dDXx2h165W/MQRuh5Xzo3cdCzKDBb61qguqOiNKrXPZT+u7r3tgaMZCd2b27eyXy2riK DIBaYW69w5Hrmx5x7kFPE5kZ+C6VV77l7rEtw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=LZNBMeROCJ5eUbLewe/H3mb2BdfsrlQUaxHYxigQKQkUyTJww/8R+cbQkHAaTxSl9l XtLECKWgfiqUfsu2ac2voitSx99jVQJpIXFeClntdRv3ZFddp5ZcVsDWnjXqv1+Qiyo/ eTbDSq0aYDG9TFmge9PT1yK+RwCgeJNZX+Y4c= Received: by 10.216.10.5 with SMTP id 5mr3428686weu.81.1283758232450; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (def92-4-82-225-58-213.fbx.proxad.net [82.225.58.213]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v11sm3096790weq.40.2010.09.06.00.30.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Subject: Re: Different layers From: Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 09:30:28 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <7672F433-392E-43A0-8EDE-1C35FE74DE9C@marcelot.net> References: To: api@directory.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Hi Stefan, On 4 sept. 2010, at 18:40, Stefan Seelmann wrote: > Hi guys, > > in IRC we had the idea to have different levels of abstraction in the > API: A low-level API that represents the LDAP protocol and a more > convenient API for common users that hides the LDAP complexity. I really like the idea. > Lets start with the search method. > > In the low-level API the search method would return a Cursor > and the user has to deal with all possible results (SearchResultDone, > SearchResultEntry, SearchResultReference, IntermediateResponse) > > In the convenient API the search method would return a Cursor > and the search method could also deal with referrals and search > continuations (throw as exception or follow transparently if the user > wants to). > > Does that make sense? This is just a first thought, we have to figure > if it makes also sense for the other operations too. +1. Makes totally sense to me. Regards, Pierre-Arnaud