directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1050378 - /directory/apacheds/trunk/server-config/src/main/resources/config.ldif
Date Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:15:52 GMT
On 12/17/10 4:00 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
> I only added it for consistency with other entries in the configuration and for the following
reason, mention by Emmanuel in the previous thread "Adding annotations to Configuration beans":
> Begin forwarded message:
>> On 12/6/10 6:00 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>>> On 6 déc. 2010, at 17:32, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>>> Also as Kiran pointed out in his response, what if the contained elements
are kept in a single attribute like this ads-compositeElement ?
>>> AFAIR, the 'ads-compositeElement' was introduced as kind of "quick hack" to ease
the work on the reader class. I really think we can get rid of it easily with the annotation
>> ads-compositeElement has been created at the origin as a way to tell the reader that
the element is a composite element. The reader was supposed to be completely generic, ie the
java Beans could have been generated automatically (except that because it requires the development
of a maven plugin, something I didn't want to do).
>> Now that you have defined some @, sure this is redondant, but if someone decide to
define a reader/writer in another language, then this element is probably necessary.
> That said, I 100% agree on the fact that this attribute is redundant and somehow unnecessary.
> I still think it should be removed for an easier (hand) writing of the configuration.
> Also, looks like the ConfigReader does not need it in its current implementation, as
all objects were perfectly instantiated before my fix on the file.
> Maybe it's time to take a community-wide decision about these types of attributes (attributes
extending 'ads-compositeElement').
> Regards,
> Pierre-Arnaud
> On 17 déc. 2010, at 15:31, Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
>> Hello Pierre-Alain,
>> is this change needed ?
>> I would think that these attributes are only needed when you are dealing with for
instance a multi-valued string.
>> But this is a list contained in a subentry ou=authenticators
>> So I think that this ads-authenticators attribute is not required.

So let's remove it.

No need to add stack over stack without cleaning what is obsolete. 
Nobody will be interested in the future to dig the code in order to 
ressucitate the different layers, as if ADS was the city of Troy...

Emmanuel Lécharny

View raw message