On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/13/10 11:44 PM, Kiran Ayyagari wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> * asn1-codec should be merged with the client-api, and all the parts that >>> are related to MINA (the best would be to abstract completely this part >>> from >>> MINA, in order to be able to switch the network layer) >> >> this abstraction layer gets complicated as we dig through, IMHO I would >> say >> let us leave it as it is, we are not gonna change our network layer >> anyway in the near >> future. We are happy with MINA, aren't we? > > Let me explain what I see as an issue : currently, shared-ldap depends on > MINA even if we don't use MINA at all (like Studio which is currently using > JNDI). Why would someone using only this part has to embed MINA too ? > > Also the only link we have with mina here is because the LdapProtocolEncoder > is implementing a MINA class to encode a message. Nowhere in shared do we > call the encode method. > > This is what I'd like to get rid of. ahhh, I see where the issue is, I had the same problem when I wanted to implement a new LdapConnection with a different transport without using MINA but I ended up bunding MINA dependency too.
+1 for a abstraction layer Kiran Ayyagari
