directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Toward 2.0...
Date Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:35 GMT

On Mar 17, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:

>>> - Documentation : This is also an something we must deliver.  
>>> Documentation is not only good for our users, it's also good for  
>>> us, as developpers, because writtng documentation helps to see  
>>> where the API is not consistent.
>> Main problem is the configuration, which has changed with each  
>> minor version. In order to make any progress here, we need to  
>> finalize the configuration for the 2.0 first. There must be a  
>> decision at some point about the technologies used etc. (XML,  
>> xbeans, stored in DIT, ...). We had discussions about this topic  
>> every month.
> Ok. Today, I spent something like 5 hours trying to get some new  
> classes injected into LdapService, and make them work nicely with  
> xbeans. So far, it's a plain failure.

And your requests for help and complaints about specific problems are  

It was a long time ago but 5 hours was the same order of magnitude to  
the time it took me to convert everything to using xbean-spring (and  
this was my first use of it).  So I wonder if your problems are due to  
some small factor that I considered too obvious at the time to  
document.  From the point of view of just having written something I  
often think its really obvious how it works, and then a week later  
spend a lot of time puzzling out what I did :-)

> I will be very clear : if we are to continue with xbeans+spring, I  
> will -1 the release. This is absolutely not mature, cryptic,  
> unusable, undocumented. In other words, it recalls me Maven 1.
> Unless xbeans reach another level of stability, I want it out of the  
> configuration. I'm fed of this piece of garbage.

Not sure what you mean by stability.  Xbean-spring hasn't been updated  
in a long time, what it does it seems to do just fine.  Undocumented I  
can't argue with, but activemq seems to be pretty happy with its  
current implementation.

I'll happily agree xbean-spring is pretty terrible, but its better  
than anything else I've seen anyone use.  One thing I would eventually  
like to investigate that I think could be a big improvement is a  
domain specific assembly language written in scala.  However IIUC a  
configuration/program in this DSL would need to be compiled.  Some  
people like groovy builders but AFAICT they have no syntax checking  
until you try to run them.

> I think this is something we have to discuss at ApacheCon, but the  
> decision should be done on the ML.

david jencks

> -- 
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message