On 9/28/07, Ersin Er <ersin.er-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/28/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu-1oDqGaOF3Lkdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.o
rg> wrote:
>

SNIP ...

3). SP Invocation: Procedure Qualification 
>
> This leads to us towards implemeting something like web services stack for
> LDAP. We need to be careful about making this really simple. And I think w
e
> should not focus on the external invocation specification during the initi
al
> standardization effort.
>

I agree and disagree .  First I disagree that this is like a web services
stack for LDAP because we're keeping it
simple with primitive static bindings for parameters.  I would not propose
that we go all the way with devising dynamic
bindings for complex types or structures.  If we did then yes you would be
right.

I agree with keeping it simple by managing the scope and I think it's
inherent in the original proposal for bindings
to primitive types and things like Dates etc.

LDAP stored procedures are useless unless they treat all invokers alike
while removing the need for clients to be aware of
the implementation language of the stored procedure doing the work.  So this
absolutely must be addressed and I have
already started on this and from my observations this is not a monumental
task to achieve.

4). SP Invocation: Parameter Bindings 
>
> As this is not an easy to solve problem quickly and as stored procedures
> are more important from the triggers point, we can focus on SP-Trigger
> integration more. Trigger Specifications allow you to inject operation
> specific parameters to stored procedures and determining the Java types fo
r
> these parameters should be handled by an RFC alone.
>

Yes you are correct. These are not simple parameters however they are static
and will not change over time.  They simply
add to the number of static bindings to be supported.

I'm adding these details btw to a the first draft (version 00) of an IETF 
>
>
> I think about the following drafts initially:
>
> LDAP Triggers: Representation and Abstract Model of Execution
> LDAP Stored Procedures - Representation
>

I have started on these two as one draft since the abstract model is the
representation IMO.

LDAP Stored Procedures - Abstract Model of Invocation by LDAP Triggers
> Java Language Bindings for Java LDAP Stored Procedures Invoked by LDAP
> Triggers
>

These may be part of the draft for triggers.

Alex

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]