You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by "Alex Karasulu (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2009/10/11 10:29:31 UTC
[jira] Created: (DIRSHARED-37) Reconsider interfaces and base
classes for Registries
Reconsider interfaces and base classes for Registries
-----------------------------------------------------
Key: DIRSHARED-37
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-37
Project: Directory Shared
Issue Type: Improvement
Reporter: Alex Karasulu
Priority: Minor
Previously the registries were specifically used by the DS but now they must be used by both studio and the LDAP API. The DS demands strict handling of various schema object dependencies while Studio does not and requires relaxed usage. The LDAP API will have further requirements perhaps, perhaps not. However a couple semantic handling requirements were introduced into the Registries to make them handle these various cases (relaxed verses strict usage). Rather than leaving these semantics in a single implementation we should instead reconsider splitting the implementation and re-exposing interfaces to use different implementations.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (DIRSHARED-37) Reconsider interfaces and base
classes for Registries
Posted by "Emmanuel Lecharny (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-37?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764432#action_12764432 ]
Emmanuel Lecharny commented on DIRSHARED-37:
--------------------------------------------
One idea, instead of using the current flags (isPermissive, acceptDisabled) would be to have subClasses.
The only issue I see with this approach is to be sure not to miss some combinaison.
So far, I see a need for a {strict/no disabled} Registries in the server plus a {relaxed/no disabled} for temporary modifications, and a {relaxed/allow disabled} for Studio. I'm not sure we need a {Strict/allow disabled} Registries...
I don't know how complex it could be to map that using classes...
> Reconsider interfaces and base classes for Registries
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DIRSHARED-37
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-37
> Project: Directory Shared
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Alex Karasulu
> Priority: Minor
>
> Previously the registries were specifically used by the DS but now they must be used by both studio and the LDAP API. The DS demands strict handling of various schema object dependencies while Studio does not and requires relaxed usage. The LDAP API will have further requirements perhaps, perhaps not. However a couple semantic handling requirements were introduced into the Registries to make them handle these various cases (relaxed verses strict usage). Rather than leaving these semantics in a single implementation we should instead reconsider splitting the implementation and re-exposing interfaces to use different implementations.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Updated: (DIRSHARED-37) Reconsider interfaces and base
classes for Registries
Posted by "Emmanuel Lecharny (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-37?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Emmanuel Lecharny updated DIRSHARED-37:
---------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 1.0.0-RC1
Let's do that for 1.0
> Reconsider interfaces and base classes for Registries
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DIRSHARED-37
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-37
> Project: Directory Shared
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Alex Karasulu
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.0.0-RC1
>
>
> Previously the registries were specifically used by the DS but now they must be used by both studio and the LDAP API. The DS demands strict handling of various schema object dependencies while Studio does not and requires relaxed usage. The LDAP API will have further requirements perhaps, perhaps not. However a couple semantic handling requirements were introduced into the Registries to make them handle these various cases (relaxed verses strict usage). Rather than leaving these semantics in a single implementation we should instead reconsider splitting the implementation and re-exposing interfaces to use different implementations.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.