directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: [ADS 2.0] Detach JNDI from ApacheDS
Date Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:51:30 GMT
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Trustin Lee a écrit :
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, I know this is a very radical approach, but I think this is 
>> mandatory to accelerate our development.
>>
>> JNDI is an abstraction API for all kinds of directory services.  LDAP 
>> is a part of the list.  From my experience, JNDI is not really the 
>> best API to access an LDAP server.  It can access the LDAP server, but 
>> not gives us the best convenience from the viewpoint of the API user.  
>> And we're using JNDI Name and DirContext interface to program our 
>> internals.  That's why we need a new API which perfectly fits into 
>> LDAP.  By doing that, we can program our interceptors and partitions 
>> more easily mapped into LDAP operations rather than JNDI operations.
> 
> The beauty of LDAP is that you can work with JNDI, Novelm API  (jldap : 
> http://www.openldap.org/jldap/) or even our own new API. We can keep the 
> JNDI approach, because it's common to many application, and dropping it 
> would be seen a little bit questionnable by our current users (I'm 
> thinking of Geronimo)
> 
>>
>> Of course, this change will take away the advantage of embedded mode 
>> unless we spend more time to create a bridge between JNDI and our 
>> API.  But I think our primary concern is to provide a high quality 
>> LDAP server whose internals are highly optimized for LDAP, not to 
>> provide a JNDI embeddable LDAP server.
> 
> We can provide both, in my opinion. JNDI is an interface...
> 

Yeah I think we can provide both.  Trustin was referring to a bridge 
before and I agree.

The LDAP protocol provider would not use this bridge however.  It would 
use the LDAP specific API instead.

Other protocol providers that back their information within ApacheDS can 
use the JNDI bridge.

>> Here's my suggestion:
>>
>> 1. Change the DirectoryPartition and Interceptor interface to fit 1:1 
>> to LDAP operations rather than JNDI operations.
>>    * Core/ServerDirContext will be removed in this process.
>>    * ServerStartupConfiguration should be merged into 
>> StartupConfiguration and embedded mode should go away because we can 
>> just disable the LDAP service later when OSGi is adopted.
> 
> This is a possible move. Alex ?

Yeah I think can.  What I recommend is small refactorings to slowly 
bring us towards this or a similar goal.  First we can decouple the JNDI 
provider from the core.  We can also decouple the configuration from the 
core as well.  By doing these things we will arrive at a better 
structure and then will have better vision to figure out what needs to 
be done next.

>>
>> 2. Migrate to OSGi framework
>>    * All protocol services will be provided as OSGi bundles and should 
>> be plugged into ApacheDS dynamically.  Because we don't have any 
>> embedded JNDI provider, LDAP protocol connection to loopback device 
>> will be used temporarilly.

Hmmm I don't know about this.  I think these guys can use the bridge and 
not have to go through the wire which would slow things down.  Trustin 
was this lookback thing related to conversations we had in the past over 
ClassLoader issues and instances of the DirectoryServer?  My memory is a 
bit hazy here.

>> 3. Support an embedded mode
>>    * But who will ever use DNS or other services without LDAP 
>> provider?  The only advantage of the embedded access is the small 
>> performance gain which might not be that important in distributed 
>> directory services.

Good point.  At this point I'm not exactly sure on any one direction.

Sorry but I have not had a chance to think about 1.1 fully yet.  I've 
been so focused on making sure we get this 1.0 out the door.

Alex


Mime
View raw message