directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kiran Ayyagari <kayyag...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [ADS 3.0] Extensions point
Date Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:28:17 GMT
totally agree on the points, it will remain a moving target if we
don't follow this.
It is quite frustrating to users and developers alike with the
constant movement and renaming of sources
and breaking things at several places.

P.S:- thanks for summarizing, it is so identical that I feel you have
just read my mind

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> we discussed a lot about how we should support OSGi and classload some
> extension points.
>
> I would like to look at the problem from the other side : what are the
> existing extension points, what kind of support we would like to offer for
> each of them, and when do we want to offer such a support... So let's start
> here :
>
> API :
> -----
> 1) Schema Objects : mainly the SyntaxCheckers, LdapComparators and
> Normalizers. We would like those elements being loadable even if no OSGi
> container is present, simply using a class.forName() on them. We should also
> be able to use their FQCN and even classload the provided bytecode, if they
> are added thorugh an entry.
>
> I'm not sure we should provide such an extensibility for 2.0.0, we can most
> certainly do that for the next version
>
> 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.
>
> I would say : wait for a future version (2.0.1 or even later).
>
> I don't think we have many more extension points in the API
>
> Server :
> --------
> 1) Interceptors : Make them bundles right away (I think it's already the
> case)
> 2) Authenticator : Bundles too. For 2.0
> 3) Stored Procedures : This is a complex issue. I don't think its ready for
> 2.0 anyway, and we have to discuss seriously about the security implication
> of allowing those guys to be injected in the server...
> 4) Partitions : Bundles, for 2.0.
> 5) Am I missing something ?
>
>
> Feel free to comment.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel L├ęcharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>



-- 
Kiran Ayyagari

Mime
View raw message