directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [ADS 3.0] Extensions point
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:19:32 GMT
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Emmanuel L├ęcharny <elecharny@apache.org>wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Thanks for being open minded here. But I know you're very very right about
the difficulty - I know I don't have the patience for this. Hence why I've
been hoping for some tooling support.


>
>> 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.
>
>
OK


> 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).
>
>
OK thanks for the clarification. I'm essentially thinking the same thing. As
long as users can themselves (if they desire to be masochistic) extend the
codec then we're great. I realize that with time additional controls and
extended operation support will emerge most likely from our own efforts
since this is so damn hard to do.

It would be a wet dream if a handful of sick masochistic users decided to
write all the popular controls and extended operations we have not had the
time to write ourselves. I know, dream on!


>
>>
>>  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 payload.
>
> Not very convenient, I agree...
>
>
Yep but the window exists for later down the line so 1.0.1 sounds just great
for working more on these extensions.

-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

Mime
View raw message