Hi Stefan,
not only is this complex from the user POV, but from the developper POV,
this is a nightmare. I frankly don't like those annotations stuff, plus
the fact that the objects are instanciated during the xml file
processing is a real burden (and makes the configuration file way too
complex).
I will talk my mind : I think that going for Spring was a big mistake.
Now, what can we do ? I think that the way to go is to have the
configuration in the DIT, with LDIF based configuration files (like
OpenLdap has).
The question is when will we have time to do that...
Stefan Zoerner wrote:
Hi all,
regarding configuration with the server.xml file: The current solution
is still not perfect; it simplifies the file a lot, but some things
are really complicated to accomplish.
I have started to documented it in the Basic User's Guide, but I
stopped, because I still hope for some improvements before
finalization in the 2.0 Providing a context entry for instance is
definitely not acceptable for our users.
This is a fragment of the current style (perhaps I have missed
something):
---
<spring:bean id="systemContextEntry"
class="org.springframework.beans.factory.config.MethodInvokingFactoryBean">
<spring:property name="targetObject"><spring:ref
local='directoryService'/></spring:property>
<spring:property
name="targetMethod"><spring:value>newEntry</spring:value></spring:property>
<spring:property name="arguments">
<spring:list>
<spring:value
xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";>
objectClass: top
objectClass: organizationalUnit
objectClass: extensibleObject
ou: system
</spring:value>
<spring:value>ou=system</spring:value>
</spring:list>
</spring:property>
</spring:bean>
---
Note that also need a custom Editor for Attributes to be configured.
Defining your own partition is at least hard with that. It is not
possible to leave the context entry out, it won't work (NPE).
Question: Is it possible to change the partition implementation that
it works without providing an initial context entry in the
configuration? In this case, the user has to add the "root entry" with
a tool/LDIF load after starting the server with a new partition the
first time, but this seems acceptable for me.
The configuration would become much easier then.
Another thing I was thinking about was creating our own namespace like
described here:
http://www.theserverside.com/tt/articles/article.tss?l=CustomNamespacesSpring2
as an alternative to xbean. We would reduce the dependencies, although
I agree that using xbean and its meta data in the javadoc is better
than foreign annotations in our own sources.
Greetings,
Stefan
Alex Karasulu wrote:
Hi David,
Do you see any potential issue with moving to Spring 2.5.x WRT XBean?
I was thinking of upgrading but thought I'd check with you first.
Thanks,
Alex
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
