directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: ChangeLog + revert, broken , take 2
Date Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:06:15 GMT
>> In order to implement the clear operation, we will have to inject a
>> new field into each operationContext : the bypassed interceptors.
> We should not need to do this. We expose access to the ChangeLog (interface)
> from the DirectoryService itself. This allows us to manage the changelog out
> of band (of ldap operations which go through the interceptor chain).  This
> is how reverts work today for example.

Not exactly. The logs are stored when we go through the
ChangeLogInterceptor. That mean we compute the reverted operation,
copy the forward operation and call the log operation when doing a

We just call revert on ChangeLog
> which we grab from the DirectoryService.

That mean we have to move the logic into the ChangeLog class. I'm not
against this idea, however, we have to move almost all the codefrom
the interceptor to the ChangeLog class. Not a lot of work though ...

>> As
>> we don't want he changeLog to be executed when reverting operations,
>> we have to bypass it.
> Hmmm we want to lock out any changes which may be taking place while a
> revert is in progress.  Implementing this is a lot more involved and
> something we need to talk more about.

Yeah. This is certainly not perfect atm, but I consider this work as
the second iteration from a prototype toward a stronger systemn which
will be used for the DRS, so most certainly not a waste of time.

>> We also may want to bypass some other
>> interceptors , like the authz or authn (if we have successfully
>> modified something, then we will successfully do the revert).
>> Adding a Collection of bypassed interceptors into the operationContext
>> will allow such a mechanism to work. It should not break the current
>> code base, as the PartitionNexusProxy handle such bypasses.
> The bypass mechanism was never created for handling these kinds of problems.
> In fact the bypass mechanism is a very dangerous and ugly work around to
> flaws in the interceptor chain design.

eh eh ;)

Maybe we shoud get rid of it in 3.0 then ... yes, I know, I wanted to
slash it in 1.0 ;)

Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message