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.
Yes, makes sense. This is why I suggested to merge shared-ldap and shared-ldap-jndi completelyOn 12/13/10 5:09 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<email@example.com> wrote:
Hi guys,I looked into shared-ldap and there are 106 imports of "javax.naming".
we currently have a shared-ldap-jndi module containing two classes :
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.
As shared-ldap isn't really JNDI free I think we should move the one
remaining UniversalContextFactory to shared-ldap.