directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot>
Subject Re: [API] [ApacheDS] Problems with extended operations
Date Mon, 05 Aug 2013 07:23:04 GMT
On 2 août 2013, at 20:50, Kiran Ayyagari <> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Recently, a user raised an issue on the LDAP API indicating that result codes from extended
operations were lost.
> See
> I took some time to debug the issue and it turns out it's true and it's even bigger than
that, the response is simply not parsed correctly and internally in the API the object we
return is just a newly created response for the given extended operation.
> The result code returned from the server is completely forgotten, same thing for the
specific values included in the extended operation response.
> On the server, Emmanuel also found that responses were not correctly encoded.
> We're currently fixing that.
> This issue lead us to have a look at how the extended operations are loaded and I took
a chance at simplifying a bit (which will help resolving the issue) the list of factories
we need to append in the command line.
> We had properties like:
> - default.controls
> - extra.controls
> - default.extendedOperation.requests
> - default.extendedOperation.responses
> - extra.extendedOperations
> In the end, those default/extra distinctions didn't mean much and we needed to have them
all the time.
> Also, the titles of the properties like 'default.extendedOperation.responses' were misleading
as it was only intended for some specific kind of unsolicited response (having no request).
> I simplified it to two simple properties:
> - apacheds.controls
> - apacheds.extendedOperations
> +1 for the move, but please support the old properties as well to keep this change backward
> cause these properties(old and new as well) are not so explicit and many users may not
think of these
> while debugging an issue, so backward compatibility saves them a lot of time when they
update their
> server libraries (but using the old scripts/classes in their applications to start the

Sure, good idea.


> All tests, scripts and installers have been updated to reflect this change, so everything
should be covered.
> Thoughts?
> Regards,
> Pierre-Arnaud
> -- 
> Kiran Ayyagari

View raw message