On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Kiran Ayyagari <kayyagari@apache.org> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Stefan Seelmann <seelmann@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  Hi guys,
>> it seems that when I did the big modification (merging all the Messages)
>> last month, I forgot to uncomment the dsml-parser which is part of shared.
>> I had it working by pointing to the ldap-api project, as it now depends on
>> it, but that was not enough to be able to build it when uncommented in the
>> shared/pom.xml file, as shared does not depend on ldap-api.
>> However, in my mind, the next step was to integrate the ldap-api project
>> into shared (well, imo, shared <==> ldap API up to a point).
>> Here is what I suggest we do :
>> - move ldap-client into shared
>> - rename shared to ldap-api
>> - move all the DIR-SHARED issues to DIRAPI
>> - and release ldap-api
> I agree and would like to discuss some more steps before releasing the API:
> - should we rename the package names o.a.d.shared or keep it?
this will be a huge a change, IMO we should keep it as it is for now
> - about the number of modules, should we merge some? Especially the
> ldap-schema* modules contain only 10 classes splitted into 3 modules.
> - the shared-ldap module contains some packages that are not directly
not quite sure about these, I think there are some dependency issues with these
> related to a client API: aci, sp, trigger, subtree.Should we still
> keep them in the ldap-api project or move them to a server module?
we should move them all out of api except ACI, cause studio can use the
ACI parser and also we might provide some easy to use api for
setting and storing ACI programmatically

Again this is a problem because we're trying to turn shared into API and these are not interchangeable I think. Things in shared are not for API. We should step carefully.
> At last before publishing an API we should decide which classes we
> consider as public API and which classes are for internal use only.
yeah, but am afraid it will delay the release by few more days

I agree with your words of caution. As long as there are doubts and we've not done everything in terms of mapping out what exists and the several levels of problems that could result we might want to not do this right now. It will take a long time to do this properly. A quick rearrangement that is not thorough will just require us to do this again. And this might piss off our users needlessly.

Alex Karasulu
My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org
To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu