directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Schema refactoring] 3
Date Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:47:32 GMT
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org>wrote:

> After more thoughts, some new ideas :
>
> - There is no need to have two classes, one for the SchemaObject, one for
> the SchemaObjectDescription. We can simply store the description in the
> SchemaObject super class, saving not only one class, but also a
> oidToDesctiption() map.
>

+1


>
> - We should keep the user provided elements. Ie, if the user send a NAME in
> uper case, like :
> ( 1.2.3.4 NAME 'MYATTRIBUTE" ...), we must render it as is.
>

+1


>
> - The best possible storage on disk is as LDIF.
>

+1


>
> - The schema modification on the server must be done as a whole, that means
> we must 'encapsulate' a sets of modifications with two extended requests,
> one to start the modification, and another one to commit or rollback it.
>

+1 - LDAP Transactions!


>
> - We must also allow only one single modification of the schema to occur.
> That means we must have a global queue of pending modifications. Once the
> first modification is done, we can apply the next one. Of course, this queue
> will be emptied after a timeout or if a specific Extented request is sent
>

Don't understand what you mean here exactly.


>
> - We may want to move the fqcn and bytecode fields of LoadableSchemaObjects
> to extensions (x-fqcn and x-bytecode).
>

Don't know for sure if that is a good idea.  They only apply to our specific
SchemaObject types.

Alex

Mime
View raw message