directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Emmanuel Lecharny (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DIRSHARED-37) Reconsider interfaces and base classes for Registries
Date Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:35:31 GMT


Emmanuel Lecharny commented on DIRSHARED-37:

One idea, instead of using the current flags (isPermissive, acceptDisabled) would be to have

The only issue I see with this approach is to be sure not to miss some combinaison.

So far, I see a need for a {strict/no disabled} Registries in the server plus a {relaxed/no
disabled} for temporary modifications, and a {relaxed/allow disabled} for Studio. I'm not
sure we need a {Strict/allow disabled} Registries...

I don't know how complex it could be to map that using classes...

> Reconsider interfaces and base classes for Registries
> -----------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: DIRSHARED-37
>                 URL:
>             Project: Directory Shared
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Alex Karasulu
>            Priority: Minor
> Previously the registries were specifically used by the DS but now they must be used
by both studio and the LDAP API.  The DS demands strict handling of various schema object
dependencies while Studio does not and requires relaxed usage.  The LDAP API will have further
requirements perhaps, perhaps not.  However a couple semantic handling requirements were introduced
into the Registries to make them handle these various cases (relaxed verses strict usage).
 Rather than leaving these semantics in a single implementation we should instead reconsider
splitting the implementation and re-exposing interfaces to use different implementations.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message