On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1 déc. 2011, at 11:08, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> following the last mails from Jason, it seems that having a bind() method in >> the Partition interface is a bt misleading. We most certainly don't need it, >> and currently, it does nothing. Moreover, the authenticationInterceptor does >> *not* call next.bind(), so there is no way the bind operation can percolate >> through the chain to the Partition. >> >> We discussed about this with Pierre Arnaud this morning, and I removed the >> method from the Partitio interface, t has no impact on the code so far (it's >> an experiment, I haven't committed anything yet). >> >> So do you think we can get rid of the bind() method in the Partition >> interface ? > > Analyzing the current situation and implementations, it looks like this > method isn't really used. > Its only real implementation, in AbstractBTreePartition<ID>, throws an > LdapAuthenticationNotSupportedException and other implementations, in > DefaultPartitionNexus and SchemaPartition, are only following the call to the > wrapped partition. > It really seems useless to me. > > +1 for the removal.
Yeah I agree. The only thing that used this was Penrose for some VD functionality. However I don't think it logically makes sense to have it here it was a hack for a hack. +1 -- Best Regards, -- Alex
