[lsc-dev] Proposal for a change on how to define implementation classes

Sébastien Bahloul sebastien.bahloul at gmail.com
Thu Jun 27 09:46:45 CEST 2013


Hi Maxime,

You are right because it's probably too complex, but you can avoid to
update the lsc-core package code to add a new plugin. Take a look at the
following page :

http://lsc-project.org/wiki/documentation/2.1/development/addingplugin

You will find the "standard" extension point to add a plugin. With this,
you should be able to add a new service just by creating a plugin
source/destination service.

Regards,

Sebastien BAHLOUL
IAM / Security specialist
Ldap Synchronization Connector : http://lsc-project.org
Blog : http://sbahloul.wordpress.com/


2013/6/26 Maxime Pelletier <maxime.pelletier at educsa.org>

> **
>
> Hi all,
>
> I decided to examine the code of LSC as part of a course I took at the
> university. This leads me (and my partner) to the following proposal and
> I'd like to have your input on it.
>
> It is currently quite complicated to extend an existing service (ex:
> SimpleJndiDstService) in order to specialize it (ex: add special behavior
> for AD). The main reason I found is that the implementation class of a
> service is hardcoded in the function
> org.lsc.configuration.LscConfiguration.getImplementationClass(). In
> practice, you would have to create a new "plugin" if you want to extend an
> existing service.
>
> My proposal is to move this "mapping" between the configuration file and
> the mapping class in the XSD. For each service tag in the XSD, we could add
> a string value named "ImplementationClass" (like for plugin), with a
> default value equal to the default implementation class. After that,
> getImplementationClass() function would simply retrieve the implementation
> class as it is doing right now for plugins.
>
> A positive aspect about this proposal is that it is 100% backward
> compatible since you won't have to specify the implementation class in the
> XML configuration file unless you want to use a specific class. And since
> you reuse the same configuration tag, you don't have to modify the XSD file.
>
> So let me know what you think about it so that I could better align this
> proposal with the community needs.
>
> Regards,
> Maxime
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Ldap Synchronization Connector (LSC) - http://lsc-project.org
>
> lsc-dev mailing list
> lsc-dev at lists.lsc-project.org
> http://lists.lsc-project.org/listinfo/lsc-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lsc-project.org/pipermail/lsc-dev/attachments/20130627/54ce06f2/attachment.htm>


More information about the lsc-dev mailing list