directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Zoerner <>
Subject Re: [ApacheDS] [XBeans] [Spring] Any issue with moving to spring 2.5?
Date Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:27:45 GMT
Hi all,

regarding configuration with the server.xml file: The current solution 
is still not perfect; it simplifies the file a lot, but some things are 
really complicated to accomplish.

I have started to documented it in the Basic User's Guide, but I 
stopped, because I still hope for some improvements before finalization 
in the 2.0 Providing a context entry for instance is definitely not 
acceptable for our users.

This is a fragment of the current style (perhaps I have missed something):
   <spring:bean id="systemContextEntry"
     <spring:property name="targetObject"><spring:ref 
     <spring:property name="arguments">
         <spring:value xmlns="">
           objectClass: top
           objectClass: organizationalUnit
           objectClass: extensibleObject
           ou: system


Note that also need a custom Editor for Attributes to be configured.

Defining your own partition is at least hard with that. It is not 
possible to leave the context entry out, it won't work (NPE).

Question: Is it possible to change the partition implementation that it 
works without providing an initial context entry in the configuration? 
In this case, the user has to add the "root entry" with a tool/LDIF load 
after starting the server with a new partition the first time, but this 
seems acceptable for me.

The configuration would become much easier then.

Another thing I was thinking about was creating our own namespace like 
described here:

as an alternative to xbean. We would reduce the dependencies, although I 
agree that using xbean and its meta data in the javadoc is better than 
foreign annotations in our own sources.


Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Hi David,
> Do you see any potential issue with moving to Spring 2.5.x WRT XBean? I 
> was thinking of upgrading but thought I'd check with you first.
> Thanks,
> Alex

View raw message