directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@apache.org>
Subject Re: New module for the ACI parser needed
Date Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:42:12 GMT
  On 6/30/10 1:23 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny<elecharny@apache.org>wrote:
>
>>   On 6/30/10 11:36 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecharny@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>    Hi guys,
>>>> while working on the ACI parser, I hit a wall : if we want the parsed ACI
>>>> to be used directly in the server without having to convert
>>>> EntryAttributes
>>>> to JNDI Attribute, we have to make the ACI parser schema aware. As it's a
>>>> good idea to do so, I checked if it was possible.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, the ACI parser is part of the shared-ldap module, when the
>>>> SchemaManager is in a separate module, depending on shared-ldap.
>>>>
>>>> In order to solve this issue, I see no better way than creating a new
>>>> module (shared-aci), any other solution would be a real PITA (like
>>>> post-processing the ACI once parsed to inject the schemaManager into the
>>>> elements).
>>>>
>>>> I will try to create this new module, and will give you some feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Please feel free to comment.
>>>>
>>>>   Perhaps there's some functionality in the SchemaManager that can be
>>> separated out into another class to be put into the shared area. Or as
>>> another option the SchemaManager functionality for dealing with schema
>>> lookups can be separated and put into shared.
>>>
>>> Basically my thinking is as follows:
>>>
>>>    o the parser just needs to be schema aware
>>>
>> That's done now. We had some discussion about AT that does not belongs to
>> the SchemaManager when parsing an ACI (like some AT found in an entry which
>> has an ExtensibleObject OC, but that does not make any sense to protect such
>> external ATs).
>>
>>
> Right we used some kind of resolver interface with an implementation that
> wrapped the AT registry if I remember correctly. This was done to facilitate
> decoupling.
uh? Not sure to get what a resolver can do here. The issue is pretty 
simple :
- the ACIItem has to be SchemaAware, which means we must pass a 
reference on the SM when initializing the ACIItemParser.
- in order to do that, we must move the ACI elements in a separate 
module because it will depend on the ldap-schema-manager module *or* 
inject the ldap-schema-manager into shared (plus all the associated 
modules, like the ldap-schema-loader, etc). This is what I did and it 
was pretty straightforward.

I think you still have i mind the previous Schema handler which used 
resolver. It's not anymore the case.
>
>>     o being schema aware (read-only) can be achieved either with
>>> non-SchemaManager components or a new SchemaManager implementation
>>>
>> Well, I think the current SchemaManager is already good enough for that
>> purpose. I don't really see the added value to create a new one.
>>
>>
> I was saying a new implementation to avoid having to pull in the current
> implementation's dependencies. For example you could implement a schema
> manager that just implemented the needed lookup methods while making the
> other methods stubs that threw exceptions when used. This way you can have a
> SM but not pull in the server's dependencies into shared.
A kind of proxy then. That could work, but the problem is that you need 
to add some glue later on when you init the ACIItem parser. Sadly, it 
breaks the tests, as you have to move them to another location where the 
SM is available. A bt too complex IMO.
>
>>   The read only component need not interact with the DS since nothing needs
>>> to
>>> be changed in the registries. It's there for lookups. The code there can
>>> then be reused elsewhere like in the server.
>>>
>>> This just shows us that the SchemaManager interface needs to be further
>>> decomposed. Whether this warrants another shared module (shared-aci)
>>> perhaps
>>> is up for debate.
>>>
>> I'm not sure we want to separate the read/write interfaces for the Schema.
>> There is no need to do so atm, I don't see the added value. Also it won't
>> solve the problem I have.
>>
>>
> Sounds like you're not understanding me. There are SM interface methods that
> might need to go into a simpler interface that is extended by the SM is all
> I was suggesting. Nothing definitive. You said we needed to make ACI schema
> aware (capable of looking up schema elements and using them) but you do not
> want to pull in some of the server dependencies.
We don't pull any server dependencies. I'm just talking about shared 
dependencies here.
> I presumed the SM implementation had deps on server components
No, none. All the SchemaManager is standalone atm.

This was an absolute need in order to get the client API to be able to 
use the Schema.

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com



Mime
View raw message