directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot>
Subject Re: [LDAP API] Codec extension mechanism direction (WAS: Re: OSGi startup and shutdown problems)
Date Wed, 11 May 2011 17:14:13 GMT

On 11 mai 2011, at 18:46, Alex Karasulu wrote:

> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <> wrote:
> On 5/11/11 5:35 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Hi dev peeps,
> So after a long thread I just wanted to summarize the realizations and
> conclusions so we can set a clear direction for managing the codec extension
> mechanism. I created a separate clean thread for this here with Guillaume's
> core recommendation following.
> For the sake of speed I will define a direction and people can opine:
> 1). Expose a means in the LDAP API (really SPI) to have codec extensions
> programmatically registered. I this already exists.
> +1
> 2). Remove the standalone codec factory implementation that starts up Felix.
> Ok, that would be a relief.
> 3). Add a simple ClassLoader component to be used in standalone mode to load
> the plugin classes (from the plugin bundles defaulting to regular jars
> presumed to be on the classpath). Some configuration information drives how
> this component discovers what plugin classes to attempt to class load.
> Ok, fine.
> 4). Set it up so by default, the LDAP API uses the simple ClassLoader based
> discover/load/register mechanism. In an OSGi environment this is disabled to
> enable plugins to self register.
> Ok.
> This should serious remove some ugly and dangerous code we've got at this
> point in the LDAP API.
> Absolutely.
> Question : are we sure that teh API will continue to work in Studio, using Equinox ?
And are we sure we will be able to have felix started in ApacheDS ?
> Actually I think it is using equinox at the present moment. If I remember correctly we're
not using the standalone mechanism when in the eclipse environment. PAM I think found a way
to get the bundle loaded under eclipse OSGi (a.k.a. equinox). Might want to get confirmation
from PAM though.

Yeah, the current implementation works fine in Equinox, without the standalone mechanisms.
Custom extensions are registered via bundle activators.
I'll keep an eye and help to maintain the complete OSGI compliance as we go forward the refactoring.

> That raises another related issue for ADS : what if an application is already using an
OSGi framework and wants to embed ADS ?

I guess, the easiest thing would be to follow what we did in Studio:
- Deploy the Shared/LDAP API bundles in the OSGI framework
- Declare dependencies on Shared/LDAP API artifacts as provided in pom.xml files
- Access classes as usual 

View raw message