directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Seelmann <>
Subject Re: About operation atomicity
Date Sun, 30 May 2010 22:37:31 GMT
Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>> One question I have is whether or not we can now get rid of the Store
>>> layer. Am thinking this might not be needed now and it makes the
>>> picture more complex when evaluating these concerns.  Can we re-factor
>>> it out of the picture? Thoughts on this?
>> Well, the Store interface contains some comments about the reason and
>> the history why a separate Store interface has been created. If that
>> isn't valid anymore I think we should merge the partition and store
>> layer.
>> Kind Regards,
>> Stefan
> Problem is İ don't know if changes in the code still mandate the reasons
> given in this module.

The Partition interface is defined in core-api module. xdbm-search and
core are independent, both only depend on core-api. I think it makes
sense to keep them independent from each other.

I think it still makes sense to keep the generic Partition interface.
AFAIK the Oracle partition uses it because Oracle has enough search
capabilities to conduct the searches on its own. Another use case is a
proxy partition that just redirects all operations to another LDAP server.

In contrast we should have the Xdbm-Partition. It defines the well-known
index, table, and master table structure and provides the search engine.
On top of this we have Jdbm-Partition, Avl-Partition, HBase-Partiton, etc.

So I think we can do the following:
- merge core-avl into core-api
- merge jdbm-store and jdbm-partiton
- merge avl-partition into xdbm-search
- rename xdbm-search into xdbm-partition

I can check that next weekend end report the results.

Kind Regards,

View raw message