This may be something we can just toss. Also shared-ldap is getting seriously huge: we need to figure out something with respect to this before a 1.0.


On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <> wrote:
On 12/13/10 5:09 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<>  wrote:
Hi guys,

we currently have a shared-ldap-jndi module containing two classes :
- JndiUtils
- UniversalContextFactory

The fist one of those class is duplicated in shared-ldap, as we need many of
the methods it contains for the SP sub-system. We can't remove it from
shared-ldap, as shared-ldap-jndi depends on shared-ldap.

I'm now wondering if it makes sense to have a separate module for JNDI, and
if it wouldn't be better to merge it back into shared-ldap ?

I'm just asking as I'm trying to solve The fact is that we
still need JNDI inside the server, and we won't be able soon to get totally
rid of it.

thoughts ?
I looked into shared-ldap and there are 106 imports of "javax.naming".
As shared-ldap isn't really JNDI free I think we should move the one
remaining UniversalContextFactory to shared-ldap.
Yes, makes sense. This is why I suggested to merge shared-ldap and shared-ldap-jndi completely

Emmanuel Lécharny

Alex Karasulu
My Blog ::
Apache Directory Server ::
Apache MINA ::
To set up a meeting with me: