Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Ldap API 2.0 roadmap
To: dev@directory.apache.org
References: <65def6be-6a59-ba9e-f116-bea0cc0f211f@gmail.com>
From: Stefan Seelmann <mail@stefan-seelmann.de>
Message-ID: <6f7b02f8-b7f4-3b96-6a56-5372b2e390fc@stefan-seelmann.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 07:03:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <65def6be-6a59-ba9e-f116-bea0cc0f211f@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
archived-at: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 05:03:49 -0000

+1 just move forward.

The only thought I have is to do a Studio release with current ApacheDS
and API version, I wanted to do since weeks it but didn't find the time
and won't have time in the next 2 weeks either.

Kind Regards,
Stefan


On 08/03/2017 02:03 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> 
> I didn't had time last week-end to post this mail.
> 
> We have released the Apache LDAP API 1.0 a few weeks ago. This was a
> great acomplishment, after years of efforts. It was not perfect, but
> still, 'good enough' is probably the correct description.
> 
> 
> Beside this effort, I started to work on a branch
> (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/shared/branches/shared-value/)
> which was a refactoring of the Value class, in order to simplify what we
> had in 1.0. The rational was to get some major errors being fixed in
> ApacheDS (mainly related to some special chars being mis-handled in
> DNs). The consequences are huge in term of performances (20% faster),
> but impacts the projects using this API.
> 
> 
> At this point, I'd like to suggest we start with a 2.0 because of those
> API changes. FTR, I ave carrefully ported all the changes made in 1.0 to
> the branch, and I also have a branch for Apacheds which relies on the
> API branch. What remains to be done is to switch to this branch for Studio.
> 
> 
> So let's thing bigger : If we go for a 2.0, I also suggest we move to
> Java 8 only for this version (I mean, Java 8 and higher). ApacheDS will
> also switch to Java 8 and will use this API 2.0 in M25, and teh next
> Studio release should also use the API 2.0 and ApacheDS with API 2.0.
> 
> 
> I would also suggest we switch to git for the API, now that 1.0 is out.
> SVN is outdated, and it's quite an anchor for us anyway (I have to use
> svn *and* git daily, it makes things more complex...). Nor sure we
> should'nt move to git for all teh projects, but startng wih teh API
> sounds reasonable atm. In any case, I'll write another mail for this change.
> 
> 
> I'd like to have your opinion about those proposed changes, before
> starting an official vote.
> 
> 
> Many thanks !
> 
>