| Author |
[ApacheDS] Doing away with JNDI interface
|
|
| Alex Karasulu 2006-07-17, 1:11 pm |
| The attempt to make JNDI the default interface for embedding the server
is costing too much in overhead and complexity. I would like the 1.1
branch to make the core use a non-JNDI based interfaces as the primary
means to embed ApacheDS.
A JNDI wrapper can be designed around the core to support the JNDI
facade. Both Emmanuel and Trustin recommended this but now it's finally
sinking into my thick head.
There is too much of an overhead incurred to maintain the balance
between simplicity and JNDI requirements.
WDYT?
Alex
| |
| Ersin Er 2006-07-17, 1:11 pm |
| Alex Karasulu wrote:
> The attempt to make JNDI the default interface for embedding the server
> is costing too much in overhead and complexity. I would like the 1.1
> branch to make the core use a non-JNDI based interfaces as the primary
> means to embed ApacheDS.
>
> A JNDI wrapper can be designed around the core to support the JNDI
> facade. Both Emmanuel and Trustin recommended this but now it's
> finally sinking into my thick head.
>
> There is too much of an overhead incurred to maintain the balance
> between simplicity and JNDI requirements.
>
> WDYT?
JNDI has a few drawbacks:
1. It requires too much plumbing for implementing the SPI.
2. JNDI to Core conversion is complicated as it's implemented currently.
3. It is not easy to use as a client side API.
4. It's not LDAP specific, but a general one.
So I favor switching to a new LDAP oriented, lightweight, and easy to
use API and provide a JNDI adaptor if needed.
> Alex
--
Ersin
| |
| Jörg Henne 2006-07-17, 1:11 pm |
| Alex Karasulu schrieb:
> The attempt to make JNDI the default interface for embedding the server
> is costing too much in overhead and complexity. I would like the 1.1
> branch to make the core use a non-JNDI based interfaces as the primary
> means to embed ApacheDS.
what would be the target audience of this non-JNDI interface? The DHCP
server? The DNS server? If yes, I have some objections, mainly centered
around interoperability issues. With the current model, the DHCP server
could talk to a non DS direcrory implementation. Once those two are tied
together using a non-JNDI interface, this option is basically lost, or
has to be resurrected by wrapping JNDI.
Joerg Henne
| |
| Alex Karasulu 2006-07-17, 1:11 pm |
| Jörg Henne wrote:
> Alex Karasulu schrieb:
> what would be the target audience of this non-JNDI interface? The DHCP
> server? The DNS server? If yes, I have some objections, mainly centered
> around interoperability issues. With the current model, the DHCP server
> could talk to a non DS direcrory implementation. Once those two are tied
> together using a non-JNDI interface, this option is basically lost, or
> has to be resurrected by wrapping JNDI.
>
Exactly! We'll use a wrapper so people will not loose out. Hope this
ameliorates your fears.
Alex
| |
| David Boreham 2006-07-17, 7:11 pm |
| Alex Karasulu wrote:
> There is too much of an overhead incurred to maintain the balance
> between simplicity and JNDI requirements.
>
> WDYT?
+1
The 'use jndi everywhere' thing always made my brain hurt.
| |
| Alex Karasulu 2006-07-17, 7:11 pm |
| David Boreham wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
> +1
>
> The 'use jndi everywhere' thing always made my brain hurt.
Yeah it's a mess. Making my brain hurt right now.
Alex
|
|
|
|