You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> on 2010/12/13 16:44:22 UTC
shared-ldap-jndi module : is it useful ?
Hi guys,
we currently have a shared-ldap-jndi module containing two classes :
- JndiUtils
- UniversalContextFactory
The fist one of those class is duplicated in shared-ldap, as we need
many of the methods it contains for the SP sub-system. We can't remove
it from shared-ldap, as shared-ldap-jndi depends on shared-ldap.
I'm now wondering if it makes sense to have a separate module for JNDI,
and if it wouldn't be better to merge it back into shared-ldap ?
I'm just asking as I'm trying to solve
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-67. The fact is that we
still need JNDI inside the server, and we won't be able soon to get
totally rid of it.
thoughts ?
PS : Even if one thinks we should keep the module separated, I'll remove
the JndiUtils class from it as it's a complete duplication from the one
we have in shared-ldap.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: shared-ldap-jndi module : is it useful ?
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
+1
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On 13 déc. 2010, at 17:09, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> we currently have a shared-ldap-jndi module containing two classes :
>> - JndiUtils
>> - UniversalContextFactory
>>
>> The fist one of those class is duplicated in shared-ldap, as we need many of
>> the methods it contains for the SP sub-system. We can't remove it from
>> shared-ldap, as shared-ldap-jndi depends on shared-ldap.
>>
>> I'm now wondering if it makes sense to have a separate module for JNDI, and
>> if it wouldn't be better to merge it back into shared-ldap ?
>>
>> I'm just asking as I'm trying to solve
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-67. The fact is that we
>> still need JNDI inside the server, and we won't be able soon to get totally
>> rid of it.
>>
>> thoughts ?
>
> I looked into shared-ldap and there are 106 imports of "javax.naming".
> As shared-ldap isn't really JNDI free I think we should move the one
> remaining UniversalContextFactory to shared-ldap.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Stefan
Re: shared-ldap-jndi module : is it useful ?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@apache.org>wrote:
> On 12/13/10 5:53 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> This may be something we can just toss. Also shared-ldap is getting
>> seriously huge: we need to figure out something with respect to this
>> before
>> a 1.0.
>>
>
> Yeah, there is some reorganization to do. Right now, we have 7 remaining
> issues for shared, I'm trying to get them d-fixed, and then we can start
> discussing about a new round of module reorg. Shared is way too big atm...
>
> Also keep in mind that we would like to merge shared and API, and there is
> nothing against having a shared-client-api module which can be loaded
> separately if needed.
>
> Let's keep it aside atm, it's not urgent, but we can't release a 1.0 before
> we have had this discussion anyway.
>
Great. We can discuss this then and handle this jndi module as well.
Just for the record someone (don't remember who) recommend creating separate
modules to break things up into discrete units while having a shared-all
conglomeration. Same for apacheds was pointed out. I think this is the way
we should go.
Again we can discuss it when it's in scope.
Regards,
--
Alex Karasulu
My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org
To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu
Re: shared-ldap-jndi module : is it useful ?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@apache.org>.
On 12/13/10 5:53 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> This may be something we can just toss. Also shared-ldap is getting
> seriously huge: we need to figure out something with respect to this before
> a 1.0.
Yeah, there is some reorganization to do. Right now, we have 7 remaining
issues for shared, I'm trying to get them d-fixed, and then we can start
discussing about a new round of module reorg. Shared is way too big atm...
Also keep in mind that we would like to merge shared and API, and there
is nothing against having a shared-client-api module which can be loaded
separately if needed.
Let's keep it aside atm, it's not urgent, but we can't release a 1.0
before we have had this discussion anyway.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: shared-ldap-jndi module : is it useful ?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
This may be something we can just toss. Also shared-ldap is getting
seriously huge: we need to figure out something with respect to this before
a 1.0.
Alex
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 12/13/10 5:09 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<el...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> we currently have a shared-ldap-jndi module containing two classes :
>>> - JndiUtils
>>> - UniversalContextFactory
>>>
>>> The fist one of those class is duplicated in shared-ldap, as we need many
>>> of
>>> the methods it contains for the SP sub-system. We can't remove it from
>>> shared-ldap, as shared-ldap-jndi depends on shared-ldap.
>>>
>>> I'm now wondering if it makes sense to have a separate module for JNDI,
>>> and
>>> if it wouldn't be better to merge it back into shared-ldap ?
>>>
>>> I'm just asking as I'm trying to solve
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-67. The fact is that we
>>> still need JNDI inside the server, and we won't be able soon to get
>>> totally
>>> rid of it.
>>>
>>> thoughts ?
>>>
>> I looked into shared-ldap and there are 106 imports of "javax.naming".
>> As shared-ldap isn't really JNDI free I think we should move the one
>> remaining UniversalContextFactory to shared-ldap.
>>
> Yes, makes sense. This is why I suggested to merge shared-ldap and
> shared-ldap-jndi completely
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>
--
Alex Karasulu
My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org
To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu
Re: shared-ldap-jndi module : is it useful ?
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On 12/13/10 5:09 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> we currently have a shared-ldap-jndi module containing two classes :
>> - JndiUtils
>> - UniversalContextFactory
>>
>> The fist one of those class is duplicated in shared-ldap, as we need many of
>> the methods it contains for the SP sub-system. We can't remove it from
>> shared-ldap, as shared-ldap-jndi depends on shared-ldap.
>>
>> I'm now wondering if it makes sense to have a separate module for JNDI, and
>> if it wouldn't be better to merge it back into shared-ldap ?
>>
>> I'm just asking as I'm trying to solve
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-67. The fact is that we
>> still need JNDI inside the server, and we won't be able soon to get totally
>> rid of it.
>>
>> thoughts ?
> I looked into shared-ldap and there are 106 imports of "javax.naming".
> As shared-ldap isn't really JNDI free I think we should move the one
> remaining UniversalContextFactory to shared-ldap.
Yes, makes sense. This is why I suggested to merge shared-ldap and
shared-ldap-jndi completely
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: shared-ldap-jndi module : is it useful ?
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> we currently have a shared-ldap-jndi module containing two classes :
> - JndiUtils
> - UniversalContextFactory
>
> The fist one of those class is duplicated in shared-ldap, as we need many of
> the methods it contains for the SP sub-system. We can't remove it from
> shared-ldap, as shared-ldap-jndi depends on shared-ldap.
>
> I'm now wondering if it makes sense to have a separate module for JNDI, and
> if it wouldn't be better to merge it back into shared-ldap ?
>
> I'm just asking as I'm trying to solve
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-67. The fact is that we
> still need JNDI inside the server, and we won't be able soon to get totally
> rid of it.
>
> thoughts ?
I looked into shared-ldap and there are 106 imports of "javax.naming".
As shared-ldap isn't really JNDI free I think we should move the one
remaining UniversalContextFactory to shared-ldap.
Kind Regards,
Stefan