directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ersin Er" <>
Subject Re: Renaming ChangeLogInterceptor to ChangeLogService
Date Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:17:14 GMT
On 9/26/07, Alex Karasulu <> wrote:
> On 9/26/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <> wrote:
> >
> > Hi !
> >
> > As I'm working on this new interceptor, I would suggest we rename the
> > interceptor name from ChangeLogInterceptor to ChangeLogService, and in
> > the same time, find another for the ChangeLogService interface.
> Np sounds like the being consistent is a good idea.
> One possible idea for what is presently named the ChangeLogService could
> be
> just ChangeLog so you can name the interceptor the ChangeLogService.
> The reason why I'm pushing this renaming is that every other
> > interceptors are named XXXService, not XXXInterceptors.
> >
> > The other possibility would be to rename all the interceptors to
> > XXXInterceptor (and it would be a better move, but sadly a wide
> > modification).
> >
> > Any objection ?
> No objection here.
> Just a note about future considerations:
> I'm beginning to realize that some subsystems that provide some kind of
> service within the server
> should be accessible straight from the the DirectoryService.

I agree! Our server is composed of Interceptors as Services. However it
should be a collection of Services and Interceptors using them. For example
the Authorization Service can be used by more than one Interceptor (yes we
need this in fact.)

These "services" present a facade to
> an entire subsystem.  They may need an interceptor to do their bidding
> however not all of them
> will need to do that.  For example we need a Scheduler service which
> probably will not an interceptor
> but should be exposed as a top level service so other things can utilize
> it.
> Some subsystems like this event log service will need an interceptor and
> will need to expose a
> facade to the subsystem so other subsystems can utilize it.  So subsystems
> may or may not
> need the insertion of an interceptor into the chain.  We need to be clear
> about our nomenclature
> in the future.  If a service like the schema service exists as a facade to
> the system accessible
> via DirectoryService.getSchemaService() then perhaps it should expose
> access to it's interceptor
> which can be gotten and added to the chain.
> Perhaps we need an InterceptingService interface which marks true
> "services" as needing to insert
> an interceptor.  This interface can also expose a getter to access the
> interceptor of the service.  Don't
> know but we should start thinking about this for the future?
> Alex

Ersin Er

View raw message