On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Kiran Ayyagari <kayyagari@apache.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:>

LdapAPI is absolutely *critical*. Once it's out, there is no way for us to
> change it, because it will be heavily sued, as it's meant to be a
> replacement for JNDI, and many of the outdated LDAP API. So we have to be
> extraordinary cautious in this area.
> However, and that's the good point, we can spend as much time as needed to
> get LdapAPI 1.0 out, as it won't be a show-stopper for ADS and Studio. It
> doesn't matter if we continue with a shared-0.9.20 in ADS 2.0 or in Studio
> 2.0, because ADS will be used way more often as a standalone server, or even
> if it's embedded, the exposed interface will be the core-API part, which is
> not part of LdapAPI (except a few classes which will need some careful
> review).
the LdapAPI is already stable and perfectly shielded from the
internals of shared, so
I see no issue from a user POV cause they are dependent on the LdapConnection
interface only

If this is the case then and the client API does not expose any other shared interfaces then we're golden here.

OK just looked and this is not the case. The LDAP Client API pulls in and exposes for starters things like Entry and DN and Cursor etc which pull in other API elements in shared. So we're not golden unfortunately.
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