directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Enrique Rodriguez" <enriqu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [ApacheDS] SASL Branch
Date Fri, 18 May 2007 19:56:20 GMT
On 5/18/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> On 5/18/07, Enrique Rodriguez <enriquer9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > PIDs are used by OSGi's Config Admin service.  When a service comes
> > online, it identifies itself by PID.  The Config Admin service can
> > then find a set of configuration for the PID and inject it into the
> > service.  This is how, for example, a protocol service like LDAP can
> > store its port in the DIT.
>
> I guess it does not hurt for us to have it here but I did not think we all
> agreed to
> start adding OSGi stuff into the code just yet.

PIDs must have gone in at least 1.5 years ago, when we did the first
prototype with OSGi.  They are not new.  In fact, that's part of the
reason the fqpn needed updating.

I agree it doesn't hurt since they are at most String constants and (I
don't have it in front of me) a getter.

> > True, the baseDN isn't used by all services.  But, it was only NTP
> > that didn't use it (HTTP is a new requirement) and there are 5 other
> > services that do use it.  It can move from 1 base class to 5
> > subclasses or you can wait until we have a real story for
> > multi-base/multi-realm support.
>
> This is fine.  I guess we just need a different base class for  these 5
> special
> services where we can pull these additional properties.
>
> We can also do this with OSGi based services as well: having an
> OSGiServiceConfiguration
> base class that extends from the ServiceConfiguration and adds all this PID
> stuff.

Sure, but at this point "all this PID stuff" doesn't amount to much.
That new intermediate class will have a constant or two and maybe some
getters.  Also, no deps on OSGi classes so IMO we don't need a
separate class.

Enrique

Mime
View raw message