directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel L├ęcharny <>
Subject Re: shared-ldap merge done
Date Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:48:13 GMT
  On 9/20/10 11:21 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<>wrote:
>> That's all what I had in mind when I asked Alex to do that in a branch : I
>> was scared that it can break the schedule we are trying to set :/
>> May be I'm wrong, or just extra cautious, I don't know...
> Let's play it safe and get the release out without worrying about this
> additional factor.
We are talking about the release of shared, not the server, here.

I was also thinking about the general layout of packages/classes etc, 
and we may have to careful review them before releasing the final 1.0 
version, because then we are dead for years !

IMO, the very first step (once we have fixed the last few pb we have 
with the GSSAPI) would be to release shared-0.9.20

Then we will have a few time to get all of it reviewed (I have started 
that 2 weeks ago, cleaning up around 80 files out of 800) and eventually 
adding OSGi stuff around it.

At this point, shared is now 7 modules, and I really don't see why we 
should keep shared-ldap-jndi and shared-ldap-schema separate.

If we have a look at shared-ldap, then it's immediate that we may have 
to move out some packages and rename some others :
- o.a.d.s.ldap.shared.converter.schema should be more likely 
- o.a.d.s.ldap.shared.csn should be in another package with entry, 
subtree, sp, aci, filter and cursor : they are LDAP internal objects, 
distinct from messages, ldif or schema. May be something like 
o.a.d.s.ldap.shared.objects ?
- could also be part of the previous package 

In other words, I *know* for sure we have to reorganize those guys, and 
I really think we should release before starting moving around those 
guys more, or adding more features in it.

We can define a schedule for that we can all agreed on, and get it done 
quickly, don't you think so ?

Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message