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.

Alex

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/13/10 5:09 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecharny@gmail.com>  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
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-67. 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



--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com




--
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