directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel L├ęcharny <>
Subject Re: Implementing Interceptor Extendibility, another way of doing things...
Date Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:57:27 GMT
On 11/3/11 3:39 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>>   - we must get rid of bypasses. They are far too numerous, and probably
>>>> out
>>>> of control.
>>> 0
>>> I don't know the answer to this myself. We need more discussion for us to
>>> see if this is the case. I think each logical aspect managed in the
>>> configuration should expose not only a direct aspect list for each
>>> operation but also a set of aspects to bypass on re-entrant invocation.
>> We are going to check if we can get rid of them one by one. The idea is to
>> directly call the nexus operation, and see if the server still works. It
>> will take some time, hopefully Kiran is giving a hand here. More to come ...
> Youch this is a lot of painful work and very error prone because you cannot
> know that you have the right data set to make sure you force out all the
> potential sticking points. But then again if we have full test coverage we
> can can know it's good up to a degree.
> We should also have some reasoning exercise as to why or why not one aspect
> should be bypass for each operation.

ATM, I think we can get rid of all the lookup and hasEntry operations. 
For modifications, it may be a bit more complex...

Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message