Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of pajbam@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=COHBKrO8juPdDKfcW73/z4VFe32/KCQov2xQtV9XhWaSm7q89Ask5H+2lJxhP/dNmz
         ywjn58qe/2+YvSLHIZ0JUifXpk+XixrfjC4eRjSc/J2EzWDiEetuCey/galzT2sL8+Ql
         b1S4gTF8seDa5gjeg+fMH9yeR3Gn86HZwcdkU=
Sender: Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pajbam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Subject: Re: API / shared merge
From: Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa@marcelot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C8958B7.6010109@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:36:26 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <80F96D00-F927-4D86-ABCF-4B0EE736410A@marcelot.net>
References: <4C88F910.7010005@gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=cL=WPr+N+AmiAdUqSjexvoKEtTWc1w0XLm9k2@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C8958B7.6010109@gmail.com>
To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>


On 9 sept. 2010, at 23:59, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:

> On 9/9/10 9:09 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Emmanuel =
Lecharny<elecharny@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>  Hi guys,
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> However, in my mind, the next step was to integrate the ldap-api =
project
>>> into shared (well, imo, shared<=3D=3D>  ldap API up to a point).
>>>=20
>>> 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?
> IMO, we should rename it to something like ldapApi

+1

>> - about the number of modules, should we merge some? Especially the
>> ldap-schema* modules contain only 10 classes splitted into 3 modules.
> Yes, definitively yes.

+1

>> - 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?
> 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.
>=20
> 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.

+1 but maybe with a package name that reflects that it is related to =
ApacheDS (eg. 'org.apache.directory.ldapapi.[...].apacheds.aci.[...]').

>=20
>> At last before publishing an API we should decide which classes we
>> consider as public API and which classes are for internal use only.
> Absolutely.

+1

Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud

>=20
> --=20
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel L=E9charny
> www.iktek.com
>=20