directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: [ApacheDS] Partition design and interfaces
Date Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:26:27 GMT
Hi Alex, PAM,

if we are to go away from JNDI, Option 2 is out of question. Anyway, the 
backend role is to store data, which has nothing in common with Naming, 
isn't it ?

More than that, we may have to build tools on top of this layer, and I 
see no reason to depend on NamingException when we have nothing to do 
with LDAP.

Option 1 will conflict in some way with JDBM and JE design, as stated by 

I would favor Option 3 then.

The good thing is that defining a new set of exceptions is not really 
that hard :)

Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> Option 1 seems the easiest solution but will it work with an exception 
> based on DatabaseException ?
> I don't think... Reading the JE API, DatabaseException extends 
> Exception and not IOException.
> I like Option 3 and the idea to encapsulate the exception thrown 
> inside our "own exception". But it means surely a lot of refactoring...
> My 2 cents. ;)
> Pierre-Arnaud
> On Jan 15, 2008 11:45 PM, Alex Karasulu < 
> <>> wrote:
>     Hi all,
>     Different underlying stores have different kinds of checked
>     exceptions they throw at the lowest level.  For example JDBM is
>     humble and just uses IO exceptions.  The JE authors use an
>     exception hierarchy based on DatabaseException.  I was wondering
>     if there was a preference out the base class for what exceptions
>     are thrown from partitions?  Right now there are a few options:
>     (1) Throw exceptions that extend IOException (works well with JDBM)
>     (2) Throw NamingExceptions works well with Java Naming but we have
>     a bad taste in our mouths from this.
>     (3) Create our own base class for exceptions thrown at these lower
>     layers like say PartitionException
>     Right now I went with IOException but I'm thinking it might be
>     biased towards a particular partition implementation.  Does anyone
>     have some opinion one way or the other?
>     Alex

cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message