Thanks Kiran for the clarifying.
>> no, this is a different one that stores all data in a single file in binary
>> format
>> yes, LDAP backend needs a server, whereas mavibot backend stores locally on
>> disk
This sounds good. Which one would ApacheDS prefer to use? This one or the
LdapIdentityBackend?
>> ic, I see that these doXXX() are for subclasses, but we can completely avoid
>> these methods, see below
I mentioned cache stuff just as a sample. Even if we get rid of the cache
facility as you suggested, I thought doXXX() methods may still validate. I
meant, for subclasses, they don't have to start with interface methods directly
every time, instead internal methods like doXXX(), because doing the way would
allow sharing template codes in the abstract class. For now, the shared codes
are just cache related, later we can enhance and add more, like parameter
checking, exception handling. Please note this pattern isn't rare, and is
widely used across the project. That's why I still have some concerns for the
proposed change (removing them).
>> This AbstractIdentityBackend ia always utilizing a cache and this is
>> enforced on all backends that subclass this, instead what we should do is to
>> create a CacheableIdentityBackend which wraps an instance IdentityBackend
>> and maintains an internal cache, and calls are delegated to the wrapped
>> backend when a cache miss happens.
>> This way implementations of IdentityBackend will be free from the side
>> effects of caching while testing and also become simple and cleaner.
This sounds great!! I'm fine to change and support the cache in this new way. I
thought it's another issue to process.
How do you think? Thanks.
Regards,
Kai
-----Original Message-----
From: Kiran Ayyagari [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [backend] AbstractIdentityBackend interface
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Zheng, Kai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Kiran for the taking.
>
> >> I am implementing a Mavibot based backend*.
> Would you clarify a bit about this? I'm wondering if it's the same
> thing, the on-going LdapIdentityBackend Yaning is working on?
>
no, this is a different one that stores all data in a single file in binary
format
> Or you mean something that uses Mavibot directly instead of by the
> LDAP connection API?
>
yes, LDAP backend needs a server, whereas mavibot backend stores locally on disk
>
> >> Is there any reason why the API methods start with doXXX()?
> I would think AbstractIdentityBackend isn't the interface, and the
> doXXX() methods are not the APIs.
> Please see the APIs in the interface IdentityBackend/IdentityService.
>
ic, I see that these doXXX() are for subclasses, but we can completely avoid
these methods, see below
> AbstractIdentityBackend is a common abstract class to implement the
> API interface, and provides some useful functionalities like cache.
>
This AbstractIdentityBackend ia always utilizing a cache and this is enforced
on all backends that subclass this, instead what we should do is to create a
CacheableIdentityBackend which wraps an instance IdentityBackend and maintains
an internal cache, and calls are delegated to the wrapped backend when a cache
miss happens.
This way implementations of IdentityBackend will be free from the side effects
of caching while testing and also become simple and cleaner.
I thought if you don't like it, you could start with totally new,
> implementing IdentityBackend/IdentityService directly.
>
> I hope the above reasons make the intention behind this proposal clear
> >> now is the time after today's commits in Mavibot trunk that address
> these bugs.
> Glad it's the time now. It will help a lot.
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kiran Ayyagari [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 5:43 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [backend] AbstractIdentityBackend interface
>
> I am implementing a Mavibot based backend*.
>
> Is there any reason why the API methods start with doXXX()?
> This looks a bit odd and hard to read.
>
> I would like to strip the 'do' verb from these methods, please let me
> know if there are any objections.
>
> * this is on hold for a long time due to the free page management
> bugs, but now
> is the time after today's commits in Mavibot trunk that address
> these bugs.
>
> --
> Kiran Ayyagari
> http://keydap.com
>
--
Kiran Ayyagari
http://keydap.com
