directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <>
Subject Re: [ServerEntry] shared-ldap and the migration ...
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:29:03 GMT
IMO doing as little as possible to while doing the conversion is best.  I
would keep unused classes where they are until the conversion is complete.
And then we can review what needs to be removed when the dust settles.  Who
knows what other problems will arise.  Phase 3 is more like a cleanup phase
where we evaluate the impact of these changes and do some house keeping.

Also shared-ldap is huge because many things were put in there from the
core.  Now we want to move it back.  I don't want to keep oscillating but
would prefer to make final moves that progress us to a better state.  Who
knows a bunch of code may need to just be removed and or pushed to some
other shared-ldap-old module that eventually can be deleted.  However we
just don't know if this should be deleted either since it might need to go
into the jndi-wrapper module that we're going to build after removing all
this JNDI code from the core.

I'm just uncertain and when uncertain it's always best to just chill with
big changes that are not relevant to the prime directive at hand. I want to
consider what you're talking about but let's do it when our world is busy
dealing with all these massive refactorings.


On Jan 17, 2008 8:54 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <> wrote:

> Hi guys,
> I' still changing every occurence of [Basic]Attribute[s][impl] we have
> in the server, and I'm now facing some interesting challenges :
> shared-ldap contains a lot of helper classes and methods which were
> created to help the poor souls when they were manipulating the JNDI
> objects. Those helper methods/classes are not anymore necessary, or if
> they are, they do not deserve to be included into shared-ldap, I think.
> What if we move those elements into core-entry ? The main reason is that
> we need to access server specific elements, which are not available in
> shared-ldap ( for evident cycle dependency avoidence reasons).
> wdyt ?
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message