[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-37?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764432#action_12764432
]
Emmanuel Lecharny commented on DIRSHARED-37:
--------------------------------------------
One idea, instead of using the current flags (isPermissive, acceptDisabled)
would be to have subClasses.
The only issue I see with this approach is to be sure not to miss some
combinaison.
So far, I see a need for a {strict/no disabled} Registries in the server plus a
{relaxed/no disabled} for temporary modifications, and a {relaxed/allow
disabled} for Studio. I'm not sure we need a {Strict/allow disabled}
Registries...
I don't know how complex it could be to map that using classes...
> Reconsider interfaces and base classes for Registries
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DIRSHARED-37
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSHARED-37
> Project: Directory Shared
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Alex Karasulu
> Priority: Minor
>
> Previously the registries were specifically used by the DS but now they must
> be used by both studio and the LDAP API. The DS demands strict handling of
> various schema object dependencies while Studio does not and requires relaxed
> usage. The LDAP API will have further requirements perhaps, perhaps not.
> However a couple semantic handling requirements were introduced into the
> Registries to make them handle these various cases (relaxed verses strict
> usage). Rather than leaving these semantics in a single implementation we
> should instead reconsider splitting the implementation and re-exposing
> interfaces to use different implementations.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
