directory-api mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Shared] API Design Questionnaire #1
Date Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:11:03 GMT
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@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.

-- 
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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message