No worries.

Alex

On 10/5/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
Forget about my idea, it was just a try. I should have tested it
before suggesting we can do it.

Sorry for the noise, buddies :)

On 10/5/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org > wrote:
> I think this may be easier to do once we start cleaning up from the bigbang.
>  I
> have some ideas on how to break up the core a bit to be able to avoid these
> maven module cyclic dependencies.
>
>
> Alex
>
>  On 10/5/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have tried to create this new project, but we have a cycle
> > dependency problem, so I reverted (locally).
> >
> > At the end, I think we should simply start from the ground a new JNDI
> > layer, and when it's ready, inject it as the interface to the server.
> > Baby steps again ...
> >
> >
> > On 10/5/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Yep that's what I thought we should do.  First the decoupling and for
> some
> > > time the provider may still reside
> > > in the core until we swap branches because I don't want to have merges
> cause
> > > problems with large scale svn folder
> > > moves.
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/5/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ok, so I think we can just create this project, and move the JNDI code
> > > > for it without any problem. It should keep the server working, but
> > > > will help later.
> > > >
> > > > I will give it a try.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Ersin !
> > > >
> > > > PS:
> > >
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DIRxPMGT/JNDI+removing
> > > >
> > > > On 10/5/07, Ersin Er <ersin.er@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > As far as I know that's what we intend to do. The server will itself
> be
> > > > > manageable without the JNDI layer and the JNDI layer will just be an
> > > adaptor
> > > > > to control the server for those who prefer to interact with JNDI.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/5/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hu guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > just wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a specific
> > > > > > apacheds-jndi sub-project, instead of having this jndi layer
> inside
> > > > > > apacheds-core ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wdyt ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Cordialement,
> > > > > > Emmanuel Lécharny
> > > > > > www.iktek.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ersin Er
> > > > > http://www.ersin-er.name
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Cordialement,
> > > > Emmanuel Lécharny
> > > > www.iktek.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Cordialement,
> > Emmanuel Lécharny
> > www.iktek.com
> >
>
>


--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com