Done!
I renamed the 'server-config' project to 'apacheds-server-config'.
The 'ConfigBuilder' class has been extracted into a separate new
'apacheds-server-config-builder' project to reduce the number of dependencies
on the 'apacheds-server-config' project.
I agree with Alex, the 'ConfigBuilder' naming is a bit confusing... Same thing
for the 'apacheds-server-config-builder' project.
Got any better names ?
Emmanuel proposed 'InstancesBuilder' for the class
('apacheds-server-instances-builder' for the project).
Thanks,
Pierre-Arnaud
On 16 nov. 2010, at 17:10, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Hi Dev,
>
> I'd like to propose two modifications for ApacheDS projects.
>
> I think the project 'server-config' should be renamed as
> 'apacheds-server-config' (to be consistent with others projects). It's the
> only project starting with a 'server' string and all other projects have a
> name starting with 'apacheds-something'.
>
> I'd also like to split the 'server-config' project in two parts.
> The first part, which would contain most of the classes and resources, will
> be responsible for reading the server config and generating config beans out
> of it.
> The second part would only contain the ConfigBuilder class which instantiate
> 'real' server objects out of the config beans (this part would depend on the
> first part of course).
>
> This name ConfigBuilder is a bit confusing. On first glance I thought it
> builds the configuration beans. Perhaps we should call it InstanceBuilder or
> FooBuilder where Foo is the top-level object that it builds.
>
>
> This is particularly important for Studio.
> With this separation the first part has very few dependencies (which is great
> and easy to use in Studio):
> - apacheds-core-api
> - apacheds-i18n
> - apacheds-ldif-partition ('test' scope)
> - apacheds-xdbm-partition
> - shared-ldap
> - junit-addons ('test' scope)
>
> The current 'server-config' project has 21 dependencies defined and is a real
> mess to integrate in Studio, especially when all you need is only accessing
> the config beans.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
>
> +1 - makes total sense.
>
> Thanks Pierre!
>
> --
> Alex Karasulu
> My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/
> Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
> Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org
> To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu
