directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <>
Subject Re: Partition.bind : do we need it ?
Date Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:24:54 GMT
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <> wrote:
> On 1 déc. 2011, at 11:08, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>> following the last mails from Jason, it seems that having a bind() method in the
Partition interface is a bt misleading. We most certainly don't need it, and currently, it
does nothing. Moreover, the authenticationInterceptor does *not* call next.bind(), so there
is no way the bind operation can percolate through the chain to the Partition.
>> We discussed about this with Pierre Arnaud this morning, and I removed the method
from the Partitio interface, t has no impact on the code so far (it's an experiment, I haven't
committed anything yet).
>> So do you think we can get rid of the bind() method in the Partition interface ?
> Analyzing the current situation and implementations, it looks like this method isn't
really used.
> Its only real implementation, in AbstractBTreePartition<ID>, throws an LdapAuthenticationNotSupportedException
and other implementations, in DefaultPartitionNexus and SchemaPartition, are only following
the call to the wrapped partition.
> It really seems useless to me.
> +1 for the removal.

Yeah I agree. The only thing that used this was Penrose for some VD
functionality. However I don't think it logically makes sense to have
it here it was a hack for a hack.


Best Regards,
-- Alex

View raw message