directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Emmanuel Lecharny" <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Renaming ChangeLogInterceptor to ChangeLogService
Date Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:44:14 GMT
We may also consider the pb we have with interceptor chain as a whole.
I filled a JIRA last month :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSERVER-1059

We may have two kinds of 'Interceptors/services', as you stated, I
agree. We need a serious discussion about that. 2.5 ?

On 9/26/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/26/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> 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.  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
>


-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny
www.iktek.com

Mime
View raw message