Bug? StartupConfiguration should use interfaces

[Mark Swanson <ma...@ScheduleWorld.com>]

Hello,

I'm looking at creating my own custom partition, but I've hit a small 
snag: StartupConfiguration forces all partitions to be of type 
org.apache.directory.server.core.configuration.PartitionConfiguration

I can work around this, but it just seems that an interface would be 
better so I can create partitions and their configurations without also 
being forced to create a JdbmPartition().

Or did I miss something obvious?

Cheers.


-- 
http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/
Free Google Calendar synchronization with Outlook, Evolution,
cell phones, BlackBerry, PalmOS, Exchange, Mozilla, Thunderbird,
Pocket PC/Windows Mobile. Also sync tasks, notes and contacts!
WebDAV, vfreebusy, RSS, LDAP, iCalendar, iTIP, iMIP support.

Re: Bug? StartupConfiguration should use interfaces

[Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>]

Mark Swanson a écrit :

> Hello,
>
> I'm looking at creating my own custom partition, but I've hit a small 
> snag: StartupConfiguration forces all partitions to be of type 
> org.apache.directory.server.core.configuration.PartitionConfiguration
>
> I can work around this, but it just seems that an interface would be 
> better so I can create partitions and their configurations without 
> also being forced to create a JdbmPartition().

Yes, this is far from being perfect. We are currently working on adding 
an interface. The real problem is that th ePartitionConfiguration class 
depends on JDBM as the underlying backend. We want to get rid of that. 
It will take some time ... Hopefully, we may have it for 1.5.1 (1.5.0 
will be out in the next few days)

>
> Or did I miss something obvious?

No, you get caught in the trap, too ;)

>
> Cheers.

Emmanuel