directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: [Shared] [LDAP] [Codec] Anyone remember why we have two LDAP ProtocolDecoder implementations?
Date Sat, 19 Feb 2011 05:08:35 GMT
On 2/19/11 5:21 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> I found these two classes here [0] and here [1]. Both implement
> ProtocolDecoder and seem to be almost identical in capability.
> One seems to have been written for the client and one for the server
> but I don't think it makes a difference. Perhaps these two can be
> consolidated into single implementation.
Definitively, yes.
> Incidentally the LdapProtocolEncoder is shared by both
> LdapProtocolCodecFactory implementations in shared and in apacheds.
> This means if we consolidate these two classes, [0] and [1], then we
> can easily consolidate the two codec factories.
Ok, let me explain why we have 2 classes. The older one was the server 
one, which was using a complex pattern with a callback, a blocking and 
not blocking decode methods, etc. The newer one was developed for the 
client, and is what we should have had from day one in the server.

Both implementations should have been merged a while back, but it was 
not simple and some convergence started last september, not finished of 

So, yes, we should have one single implementation. The client 
implementation is probably the correct base to start with.

Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message