Uploaded image for project: 'Directory Client API'
  1. Directory Client API
  2. DIRAPI-114

Reconsider interfaces and base classes for Registries

    Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Minor
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 1.0.0-M32
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      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.

        Activity

        Hide
        elecharny Emmanuel Lecharny added a comment -

        Actually, we now have a relaxed mode that works well even for schema that are not consistents. This should be ok for ApacheDS or other LDAP servers.

        Show
        elecharny Emmanuel Lecharny added a comment - Actually, we now have a relaxed mode that works well even for schema that are not consistents. This should be ok for ApacheDS or other LDAP servers.
        Hide
        pamarcelot Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot added a comment -

        Moving issues to the latest non-released version.

        Show
        pamarcelot Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot added a comment - Moving issues to the latest non-released version.
        Hide
        elecharny Emmanuel Lecharny added a comment -

        Postponed

        Show
        elecharny Emmanuel Lecharny added a comment - Postponed
        Hide
        elecharny Emmanuel Lecharny added a comment -

        Let's do that for 1.0

        Show
        elecharny Emmanuel Lecharny added a comment - Let's do that for 1.0
        Hide
        elecharny Emmanuel Lecharny added a comment -

        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...

        Show
        elecharny Emmanuel Lecharny added a comment - 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...

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            akarasulu Alex Karasulu
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development