directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ole Ersoy <>
Subject Re: [CONSTANTS] Changing AT and OC
Date Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:06:23 GMT

Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Ole,
> On 4/19/07, *Ole Ersoy* < 
> <>> wrote:
>     Hey Alex,
>     You do have auto complete you know :-)
> This is not the problem.
>     The original idea here was to minimize the
>     learning curve for future contributors and
>     code reviewers.
> Using AT and OC should not be a real problem. If you are down to the 
> code where you are using those abbreviations, then it means you already 
> have a certain level of knowledge about what is what in Ldap.

Basically what you are saying here is that once you know the code
you understand it.  Sure.  Naturally.  I get it now too.  For me
there is very little value now in changing AT and OC.

It's only for beginners.

The way I see it, if the code base is easier to understand, ADS will
attract more developers and reviewers.


>     Also, the purpose of using constants is to
>     ensure that the constant can be changed
>     in one place only, and then be automatically
>     updated in all other places.
> Ole, we are aware of that. I think we all have a serious background in 
> coding...

Yes - I know.  The reason I pointed that out is because Alex said this:

Extrapolate this to MATCHING_RULE and DIT_STRUCTURE_RULE etc and the 
code text gets filled up with long constant names for 2-3 letter 
strings.  That defeats the purpose of using the constant in the first 
place.  Just learn and stick with the convension.

So I wanted to make sure the record was clear on what the purpose of
the constant is.

Also now that I'm reviewing it more closely, I actually think using the
constant can greatly enhance the "Digestability" of some of these
short abbreviations that LDAP uses.

When something is spelled out clearly, so that it is immediately 
recognizable to someone who is seeing it for the first time,
it makes development easier.

>     There are so many abbreviations in LDAP, like
>     ou, cn, sn....that when more get added the cognitive
>     load is pretty significant for beginners.
> On the opposite, Ldap is not simple. RFCs which describe LDAp are huge : 
> probably around 500 pages if you gather all of them. Don't excpect LDAP 
> to be simple. The coginitive load *is* significant, even for 
> experimented players...

Yes - I agree.  I just try to make everything as simple as possible.
When starting with any apache project, there's typically so much to 
learn to become a productive contributor that every little bit helps.

>     <snip>
>     I think ApacheDS will be more popular for contributors
>     when the code base is as simple as possible to work with. 

BTW - Thanks for commenting in detail.  This is a good discussion.
A little long perhaps for something this trivial :-), but still gooddd.

I invest my time in this, not so much because I consider making OC
and AT simpler, but more because of the general philosophy behind
making things simple.  My view is that if it can be made simpler,
this will help others, and by helping others, the server gets better
because more people will want to work with the code.

- Ole

View raw message