directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Implementing Interceptor Extendibility
Date Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:58:16 GMT
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Göktürk Gezer <gokturk.gezer@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On Oct 31, 2011 11:18 AM, "Alex Karasulu" <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Göktürk Gezer <gokturk.gezer@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> > Let's be really careful about the common terminology we will be using
> for this discussion. When you say "standalone ApacheDS", I automatically
> think about the standalone ApacheDS maven module that holds the ApacheDS
> main() application launcher.
> >
> Yeah, that is what i mean by standalone.
>
> Coolio.

SNIP ...

>> To talk about Interceptors specifically, here is the design that i'm
> thinking. To manage OSGI heavy dynamic nature, we must implement our
> Interceptor related code in the closest module that is using Interceptors,
> which is InterceptorChain in our case. First step will be implement a
> component called InterceptorHub which is responsible for keeping list of
> all Interceptors installed in the container(means installed in OSGI as
> bundle). This hub will create an instance of every Interceptor per every
> ApacheDS instance and keep it.
> >>
> >> When an InterceptorChain want to iterate through interceptors, it will
> get them from InterceptorHub rather then
> DirectoryService.getInterceptors(). So it will get the most recent list of
> interceptors every time.
> >>
> >
> > OK
> >
> > Just a question: why not just make the InterceptorChain act as or
> perform the duties of the hub? I guess the hub is intended as an internal
> component of the chain that hides some details relating to OSGi from the
> chain?
> >
> Yeah absolutely. Hub is for hiding OSGI related matters, just like
> SchemaElementsManager in API. Serving OSGI related services into existing
> code as abstracted tool is good for management and clarity IMO.
>
> OK cool I was wondering if this was why you did that.

SNIP ...

> > I think I really like this ordering scheme you've proposed but I have to
> give it some time and thought. Also interested in other commentary.  This
> looks great and thanks for your effort.
>
> Thanks. I'm waiting to hear more from you.
>
>
Thanks Gokturk this was a good email. Will think about the interceptor
changes as well and get back to you.

-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

Mime
View raw message