On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <firstname.lastname@example.org>
IMO, we should rename it to something like ldapApi
On 9/9/10 9:09 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<email@example.com> wrote:
I agree and would like to discuss some more steps before releasing the API:
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
- should we rename the package names o.a.d.shared or keep it?
I disagree with making a bulk move like this. Shared is more than just stuff for the ldap-api. Until we take a full inventory and look at the big picture and how we will grow with new features and fuctionality that will be shared verses the code that will become the ldap API we should not make rash SVN churning moves.
Yes, definitively yes.
- about the number of modules, should we merge some? Especially the
ldap-schema* modules contain only 10 classes splitted into 3 modules.
I disagree - not enough information to make this call until we understand why. Was this done for some dependency coupling reasons? Does this situation still exist? If not sure but we need to take a look at the whole picture.
aci are likely to be used on the client side, as you may want to manipulate them on the browser. The very same for subtree.
- the shared-ldap module contains some packages that are not directly
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?
+1 good point
sp and trigger is a bit different, but again, as this is up to the 'client' to inject SP and triggers into the server, I *think* they might remain on the client API.
Again good point.
At last before publishing an API we should decide which classes we
consider as public API and which classes are for internal use only.