directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kiran Ayyagari <>
Subject Re: Shared refactoring proposal
Date Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:27:07 GMT
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <> wrote:
>  On 9/13/10 11:44 PM, Kiran Ayyagari wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<>
>>  wrote:
>>> * asn1-codec should be merged with the client-api, and all the parts that
>>> are related to MINA (the best would be to abstract completely this part
>>> from
>>> MINA, in order to be able to switch the network layer)
>> this abstraction layer gets complicated as we dig through, IMHO I would
>> say
>> let us leave it as it is, we are not gonna change our network layer
>> anyway in the near
>> future. We are happy with MINA, aren't we?
> Let me explain what I see as an issue : currently, shared-ldap depends on
> MINA even if we don't use MINA at all (like Studio which is currently using
> JNDI). Why would someone using only this part has to embed MINA too ?
> Also the only link we have with mina here is because the LdapProtocolEncoder
> is implementing a MINA class to encode a message. Nowhere in shared do we
> call the encode method.
> This is what I'd like to get rid of.
ahhh, I see where the issue is, I had the same problem when I wanted
to implement a new
LdapConnection with a different transport without using MINA but I
ended up bunding MINA
dependency too.

+1 for a abstraction layer

Kiran Ayyagari

View raw message