Alex, I'm not sure that including two sets of operational parameters for calls to the partition is the right answer. Doing this would allow partitions to be written that could not benefit from optimizations made by interceptors. I like the interceptor paradigm because it encourages modularity and code reuse. I think that it would be wise to "encourage" partition authors to use interceptors appropriately and not embed into the partition what should be in an interceptor.
However, it would also be wise to allow users the option of not using certain interceptors with a particular partition. In other words, we need per-partition interceptor configuration. I'm fairly focused on my current project, but I think it would be generally useful to make the interceptor configurations a property of the partition configuration (in server.xml). This way users can select the set of interceptors that they'd like to use with a given partition. Situations where interceptor functionality is required by a partition (such as normalization) could easily be detected in individual partition initialization code and result in the appropriate (graceful) warning or failure. Not sure, but I think what I've described above would work for embedded implementations too... -- Matt P.S. - I'm still looking for an elegant way to implement interceptor bypass in the current 1.x codebase. Still haven't found one that wouldn't also change the Interceptor interface (resulting in a cascade of changes). Looking at a few more ideas before I give up. On 10/4/07, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also at some point we may include two sets of operation parameters. One > set is the > original set of parameters for the operation without any alterations > taking place such as > those with normalization or other optimizations. Another set will be the > same parameters > tweaked by the system which should be applied by partitions. > > These are considerations for our bigbang branch which is refactoring the > 1.5 line for a > 2.0 release. I think by providing the original request objects in the > operation context as > well as the modified versions of them your problem will probably go away. > > Still though feel welcome to follow this activity to make sure your needs > are met as > we change the server's architecture. Any recommendation or involvement > would be > highly appreciated. > > Alex > > On 10/4/07, Matt Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ok. I will. Thanks. > > > > On 10/3/07, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > Yes I understand. If you would like to implement this bypass > > > capability based on the target DN then feel > > > free to submit a patch. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Alex > > > > > > On 10/3/07, Matt Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > I'm trying to write a custom partition that will be used as context > > > > partition, but I'd like to continue to use the Btree/Jdbm partition > > > > implementation for the system configuration partition. > > > > > > > > With a little trial and error (mostly errors), I've found out that > > > > several methods in the JdbmPartition (used by the system configuration > > > > partition partition) will not work unless preceeded by a corresponding > > > > "fix-ups" provided by the interceptors. For example, calls to to the > > > > methods in > > > > org.apache.directory.server.core.normalization.NormalizationServicemust > > > > be made, or BindDNs can not be resolved. Unfortunately, > > > > MyCustomPartition, doesn't like the way that LdapDNs, attributes and > > > > filters > > > > are normalized by > > > > org.apache.directory.server.core.normalization.NormalizationService > > > > . > > > > > > > > In other words, there appears to be more than at least one > > > > situation where a correlation between interceptors and partitions is > > > > necessary, but what we have (at least in Apache DS 1.0.x) is a > > > > design where all interceptors in the chain are called regardles of the > > > > partition that will eventually be invoked. To configure per-partition > > > > interception. > > > > > > > > Perhaps what I'm looking for is a way that I can insert my > > > > interceptor first in the chain and then optionally skip other > > > > interceptors > > > > if I encounter a DN or base that I know will invoke my partition? > > > > According > > > > to documentation for ApacheDS 1.0.x ( > > > > http://directory.apache.org/apacheds/1.0/interceptors.html) the > > > > Nexus is called by a "special interceptor" at the end of the chain. > > > > Therefore, it seems very difficult to skip interceptors in the chain > > > > without > > > > also elimintating the call to PartitionNexus ... > > > > > > > > I suppose my real question is why ApacheDS wasn't designed so that > > > > interceptors could (optionally) be configured for association only with > > > > a > > > > certain suffix or partition. This would allow the configuration > > > > flexibility > > > > that I would need -- to use both the JdbmPartition and my own > > > > customPartition without having to undo all of the normalization, schema, > > > > referral (,etc) stuff in my own customPartition that I didn't want done > > > > in > > > > the first place... > > > > > > > > Does this make any sense? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
