directory-api mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Let's start for real ?
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:53:07 GMT
Hi guys,

what about starting for real to work on this common API ? We have had
many preliminary discussions, and also have done a common presentation
with Ludovic 2 months ago. I was pretty busy since then, but right now,
the urgency to get a clean API is getting higher.

We have already clarified what a common API should be about. I suggest
we start by defining the names we want to use for the base objects.

There are a few which are really genuine to ldap, namely, DN, RDN, AVA,
Entry, Attribute, Modification, Control, LdapURL, AttributeType,
DitContentRule, DitStructureRule, MatchingRule, MatchingRuleUse,
NameForm, ObjectClass, Syntax, ResultCode, OID and CSN.

i'm not sure I have listed all the base objects, so feel free to add
those you think are missing.

Also those names are not the final ones. The idea is to discuss about
the exact names we will use. For instance, DN is not necessarily the
most common form. Many APIs or implementations are using LdapDn or
LdapDN. Assuming that the Java naming convention requires that the first
letter only to be upcased, one can think that Dn or Rdn is a better name.

Please feel free to give your opinion.

<Emmanuel's option>
DN : I would rather use Dn
RDN : Same her, Rdn sounds better to me
AVA : idem, Ava
Entry : fine
Attribute : fine, except that it collides with JNDI attributes, making
the JNDI -> new API translation cumbersome. EntryAttribute ?
Modification : Fine
Control : Fine
LdapURL : LdapUrl has my preference
AttributeType : Fine
DitContentRule : Fine
DitStructureRule : Fine
MatchingRule : Fine
MatchingRuleUse : Fine
NameForm : Fine
ObjectClass : Fine
Syntax : Fine, or LdapSyntax
ResultCode : Fine
OID: Oid for me
CSN: Csn again, same reason

cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message