directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel L├ęcharny <>
Subject Re: [ADS 3.0] Extensions point
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:30:17 GMT
On 10/21/11 3:12 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> 2) Controls, Extended operations : IMO, encoding and decoding operations
>> are by far too complex for those who have no knowledge about the way we do
>> that. Actually, that mean Kiran and me, maybe Pierre-Arnaud with a bit of
>> training. Ok, this sounds really bad, but we also have to consider that we
>> are not likely to add new controls or extended operations frequently.
> It's really dangerous to make these kinds of presumptions even if you're
> right to a large extent. Because you just never know what itch people really
> will need to scratch.

Well, what I feel as dangerous is that we have so few people able to 
write a codec :/

But, yes, this assumption might perfectly prove to be damn wrong.
> I'm in disagreement about not making this aspect an extension point. I think
> it's critical for third parties to be able to use our API and make it
> successful. Perhaps we need better tooling support to assist to some degree
> in designing extensions and controls or maybe just some script utility. Who
> knows what can happen in this area.

Don't get me wrong : they *have* to be extension point, but we can live 
with what we have for 2.0.

We will have to inject more controls and more extended operation 
support, more specifically in the API, that's a fact.

However, I consider that it can be done later, with minor versions 
(1.0.1, etc).
>> I would say : wait for a future version (2.0.1 or even later).
> I think we already have an extensible solution right now don't we? You can
> add your own control no matter how hard it is right now.

Yes, using the GenericControl. However, it won't encode and decode, so 
it's ok on the client side, assuming that the client inject the encoded 

Not very convenient, I agree...

Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message