Specialized vs. Generic Interfaces?

Hi,
I am new to these forums, please let me know if this is already part of a FAQ or not the appropriate place to ask this question.
When designing an interface, would you recommend specialized or Generic Interfaces?
As I am not sure if makes any sense, here are the two thinkings I have to define a myObject.getExportOptions() method that would return the ExportOptions that can be applied (i.e. "setCharacterDelimiter" for CSV export, "setHeader" for PDF, HTML....)
Option 1:
the code looks like:
myObject.setExportMode(MICROSOFT_EXCEL);
myExportOptions = (ExportOptionsExcel) myObject.getExportOptions();where the getExportOptions() would be defined as
ExportOptions getExportOptions(); with the ExportOptions interface only defining all the common export options to all the export methods (PDF, Excel, HTML, Text...). And then to get to the export options that are specific to an export format, you would have to cast the object to a specific interface which extends the "generic" interface.
Option 2:
the code looks like:
myObject.setExportMode(MICROSOFT_EXCEL);
myExportOptions = myObject.getExportOptions();where the getExportOptions() would be defined as
ExportOptions getExportOptions();with ExportOptions defining all the export options accross all the export methods (PDF, Excel, HTML, Text...). But if you tried to call the ".setExcelFormat(EXCEL_95)" method when the ExportMode is set to "TEXT_ONLY" then an exception would be raised (maybe something like "ExceptionNotApplicableToExportFormat").
I did not find any document describing the prefered method of building this.... Any idea?
Thanks,
MonLand.

I think I was not clear enough in my first message. Let me try to re-explain with a little bit more details (and more pseudo-code).
Option 1:
myReport.setExportMode(MICROSOFT_EXCEL);
ExportOptions myExportOptions = myObject.getExportOptions();
myExportOptions.setExportFileName("myReport"); // This would be common to any "export format" Now, for the "Excel" specific parameters, I would have to cast the options:
ExportOptionsExcel myExcelExportOptions = (ExportOptionsExcel) myExportOptions;
myExcelExportOptions.setExcelFileFormat(EXCEL_97);From the implementation point of view, I can have one "generic" ExportOption class/interface that contains all the common export properties. In addition, three or more classes that implement the specific export settings (one for Text_ONLY; one for MICROSOFT_EXCEL; one for PDF.....). From the developer point of view, to be able to set the "specific" properties, they have to know what interface to cast the export options to (because in the background, the reportObject class would create/return the "right" export options based on the export format that was set).
Option 2:
This time the ExportOptions is a much more generic interface and declares everything. But an exception is raised if I am trying to set parameters that don't make sense:
myReport.setExportMode(MICROSOFT_EXCEL);
ExportOptions myExportOptions = myObject.getExportOptions();
myExportOptions.setExportFileName("myReport"); // This would be common to any "export format"
myExportOptions.setExcelFileFormat(EXCEL_97);Now, if I was to do:
myReport.setExportMode(TEXT_ONLY);
ExportOptions myExportOptions = myObject.getExportOptions();
myExportOptions.setExportFileName("myReport"); // This would be common to any "export format"
myExportOptions.setExcelFileFormat(EXCEL_97);This last line would raise an exception (let's say "UnsupportedProperty") because the Text mode does not support the ExcelFileFormat property.
From the implementation point of view, I can have three or more classes that implement the "ExportSettings" interface (one for Text_ONLY; one for MICROSOFT_EXCEL; one for PDF.....). But from the developer point of view, it does not matter with class gets used.
Why I am asking: I am currently facing a design that looks like Option 1 and I can not figure out why this has to be that complex to use. Very hard to document if you replicate that design everywhere in a large API with a large number of objects/interfaces; you never know what to cast the object to; you never can guess what method you are looking for because you have to look at the definition of 3 or 4 interface at the minimum to see if you see something that fits your needs. So I am trying to understand if this is because it is much easier to implement that Option 2.
I see the following drawback for Option 2: If you need to add an extra property to one of the export format, you probably have to update the "generic" interface, the "generic" implementation of that interface, and each "specific" implementation to reflect that new property.
Thanks a lot for your time!
MonLand

Similar Messages

Writing generic interfaces?

I would like to write a generic interface for a Factory. The implemented Factory should as minimum contain two methods that returns a List of "something" as seen below.
But I don't want to put any restrictions on the return type since a user might want to use objects from his or her own API. Is the solution to just specify the interface as:
public interface IReportFactory {
     List newProducts();
     List newTables();
}

Here's a small example to guide you. Good luck my friend...
import java.util.*;
public class Test
     public static void main(String... args)
          List<Product> prodList = new ArrayList<Product>();
          prodList.add(new Product("radio", 100)); prodList.add(new Product("Walkman", 50));
          List<Table> tableList = new LinkedList<Table>();
          tableList.add(new Table("customer", 100)); tableList.add(new Table("Product", 1000));
          Report r = new Report(prodList, tableList);
          System.out.println("Products\n----------\n"+r.newProducts());
          System.out.println("Tables\n----------\n"+r.newTables());
          System.out.println("\nChanging Structures to Vector and Stack\n");
          prodList = new Vector<Product>();
          prodList.add(new Product("radio", 100)); prodList.add(new Product("Walkman", 50));
          tableList = new Stack<Table>();
          tableList.add(new Table("customer", 100)); tableList.add(new Table("Product", 1000));
          r = new Report(prodList, tableList);
          System.out.println("Products\n----------\n"+r.newProducts());
          System.out.println("Tables\n----------\n"+r.newTables());
class Product
     String name; double price;
     Product(String n, int p){ name = n; price = p;}
     public String toString(){ return "\nName = "+name+" & Price = "+price+"\n";}
class Table
     String name; int numRecs;
     Table(String i, int v){ name = i; numRecs = v;}
     public String toString(){ return "\nName = "+name+" & # of Records = "+numRecs+"\n";}
class Report<T, V> implements IReportFactory<T, V>
     T prodList;
     V tableList;
     Report(T prodList, V tableList)
          this.prodList = prodList;
          this.tableList = tableList;
     public T newProducts()
          return this.prodList;
     public V newTables()
          return this.tableList;
interface IReportFactory<T, V>
     T newProducts();
     V newTables();
}

Implementing two generic interfaces

I have a generic interface,
public interface Callback<R> {
   void result(R r);
}Now I want to implement two Callback interfaces, like this
class X implements Callback<Type1>, Callback<Type2> {
   public void result(Type1 r) {};
   public void result(Type2 r) {};
}But Eclipse tells me "The interface Callback cannot be implemented more than once with different arguments".
I don't see the reason why really. The two overloaded result methods have different signatures so there shouldn't be any problem in resolving the correct one based on parameter type in principle.
Does anybody know the reason for this restriction or is it maybe an issue with Eclipse. I'm using Eclipse 3.2M5a and Java 6.0 beta.

mlk has the correct answer, but here's some more explanation:
Generics are only used at compile time. The actual bytecode specifies the base object type (aka type erasure), in this case Object. When you implement a generified interface, the compiler will generate a bridge method from the erased type to the specific type.
Some examples should make this clearer.
First, your interface. If you run javap on the compiled class, you'll see that it only defines a single method, "void result(Object)".
Code that invokes the interface, like this:
    Callback<String> foo = \\
    foo.result("bar");also gets translated to a call on the base type. As far as the compiled class is concerned, there is no type safety. However, the compiler will complain if you pass something other than a String.
The implementation class is where things get interesting:
public class TestCallback implements Callback<String> {
public void result(String x) {
}If you run javap on this class, you'll see that it contains two implementations of result(): one that takes a String, and one that takes an Object. If you look at the bytecode, the latter performs a cast on the Object and invokes the String variant.

Generic Interface

Hi
I am working with a company which developed an application for procurement and selling to the client. My company has a
client which is using Oracle E-business Suite R12 and want me to create an interface between the Procurement application
ans Oracle E-business Suite R12. Now the requirement of my company is to develop a generic interface which can be used
with any Oracle e-business Suite R12 instance regardless of the different setups. Can anyone give me an idea regarding the same.
I am an Oracle E-Business Suite developer but the requirement seems new to me.
Regards
Ali

I do not have many details about the generic interface you are planning to build, but you can refer to iREP/eTRM website for details about Oracle Procurement APIs.
http://irep.oracle.com/index.html
http://etrm.oracle.com/pls/etrm/etrm_search.search
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B53825_03/current/html/docset.html
Thanks,
Hussein

Enum implementing Generic interface

Is there any way to implement a generic interface and specify the types for each enum
public interfact IPrimaryKeyType<C extends Object> {
public enum PrimaryKeyType implements IPrimaryKeyType {
SINGLE,
COMPOSITE,
There is no way to specify the type for each enum element. Though you can specify the type for all enums as below.
public enum PrimaryKeyType implements IPrimaryKeyType<Object> {
SINGLE,
COMPOSITE,
Any ideas?

The best way to answer questions like this is to look at the spec: http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/classes.html#8.9
The answer seems to be that what you're trying to do is impossible.

Generic interface methods

The problem is that I want a generic interface that has a method that returns type T. And concrete implementations specify the type T and the method body.
Given the interface and class below, why do I get an unchecked conversion warning, and how do I eliminate it? Or is there an alternative?
Warning displayed by eclipse:
Type safety: The return type String of the method convert(String) of type AsciiStringConverter needs unchecked conversion to conform to the return type T of inherited method.
This code compiles...
public interface StringConverter<T>
    public T convert(String string);
public class CharacterValueConverter implements StringConverter<int[]>
    public int[] convert(String string) //unchecked conversion warning
        int[] values = new int[string.length()];
        for (int i = 0; i < string.length(); i++)
            values=(int)string.charAt(i);
return values;
Thanks,
C.

Here is the code that is used to test the CharacterValueConverter...
public class Test
    public static void main(String[] args)
        int[] values = new CharacterValueConverter().convert("abc");
        for(int i : values)
            System.out.println(i);
}

How to refer to genericized interface

Hi,
I have the following interface:
package org.tbiq.gwt.tools.rpcrequest.server;
import org.tbiq.gwt.tools.rpcrequest.browser.RpcRequest;
import org.tbiq.gwt.tools.rpcrequest.browser.RpcRequestException;
import org.tbiq.gwt.tools.rpcrequest.browser.RpcRequestService;
import org.tbiq.gwt.tools.rpcrequest.browser.RpcResponse;
public interface RpcRequestHandler<ReqT extends RpcRequest<ResT>, ResT extends RpcResponse>
public boolean isCompatibleWith(Class<ReqT> rpcRequestClass);
public ResT execute(ReqT rpcRequest)
throws RpcRequestException;
}I also have a dummy implementation of this interface:
package org.tbiq.gwt.tools.rpcrequest.server;
import org.tbiq.gwt.tools.rpcrequest.browser.DummyRpcRequest;
import org.tbiq.gwt.tools.rpcrequest.browser.DummyRpcResponse;
import org.tbiq.gwt.tools.rpcrequest.browser.RpcRequestException;
public class NewDummyRequestHandler
implements RpcRequestHandler<DummyRpcRequest, DummyRpcResponse>
@Override
public DummyRpcResponse execute(DummyRpcRequest rpcRequest)
throws RpcRequestException
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
return null;
@Override
public boolean isCompatibleWith(Class<DummyRpcRequest> rpcRequestClass)
if (DummyRpcRequest.class == rpcRequestClass)
return true;
return false;
}This interface refers to 2 dummy objects DummyRpcRequest and DummyRpcResponse. There is nothing special about them. They are just regular beans that implement marker interfaces (RpcResponse and RpcRequest<T extends RpcResponse>).
DummyRpcResponse:
package org.tbiq.gwt.tools.rpcrequest.browser;
@SuppressWarnings("serial")
public class DummyRpcResponse
implements RpcResponse
}DummyRpcRequest:
package org.tbiq.gwt.tools.rpcrequest.browser;
@SuppressWarnings("serial")
public class DummyRpcRequest
implements RpcRequest<DummyRpcResponse>
}Somewhere else, I have a class that implements some other interface. Part of implementing that interface is this method:
@Override
public <T extends RpcResponse> T execute(RpcRequest<T> rpcRequest)
throws RpcRequestException
RpcRequestHandler<??????> handler = new NewDummyRequestHandler();
return handler.execute(rpcRequest);
}So, the '?????' is my question. How do I refer to the handler such that it compiles. Right now, now matter what I try in that line, the handler.execute(rpcRequest) doesn't compile.
Also, it's possible that I messed up my RpcRequestHandler interface and defined it in a wrong way (as far as generics are concerned). I am not sure.
Any help would be much appreciated!
Thanks,
Yaakov.
P.S. The code in the last method is obviously for testing only. I am planning to have a Map of those handlers and choose the handler dynamically based on the type of the RpcRequest that is passed into the execute method.
Edited by: ychaikin on Feb 23, 2010 1:10 PM

Had a play round some more with this to refresh my knowledge, and understand exactly where you're coming from
I don't know what your RpcRequest and RpcResponse interfaces look like - although since your concrete implementations DummyRpcRequest and DummyRpcResponse don't implement any methods, I guess that means that the two interfaces are blank.
The fact that the RpcRequest takes a parameter of a subclass of RpcResponse, though, implies that there's some sort of relationship there. Perhaps, in future, you intend to have a method sig in RpcRequest that say, returns a subclass of (the type of RpcResponse you created the concrete implementation of RpcRequest with). It's hard to offer more suggestions without knowing exactly what you intend with this code.
A handler takes a RpcRequest<RpcResponse>, runs its execute method, and somehow (depending on implementation) returns an RpcResponse.
So I tested some code which I guess summarises your situation, and which works okay - if you want, you can blat this all into a file Test.java and compile/run it in textpad.
interface Response {
     String message();
class SpecificResponse implements Response {
     public String message() { return "Why hello there!"; }
interface Request<E extends Response> {}
/* This Request subclass stores a canned, fixed Response object. */
class StoredResponseRequest<E extends Response> implements Request<E> {
     private E myResponse;
     public StoredResponseRequest(E useThis) {
          myResponse = useThis;
      public E getStoredResponse() {
          return myResponse;
/* A handler <B, A> is able to take in a B (extends Request<A>), and return an A. */
interface Handler<B extends Request<A>, A extends Response> {
     public A execute(B request);
/* A HandlerForStoredResponseRequests works by assuming that all the Request<A>s it gets passed are, in fact,
     StoredResponseRequest<A>s. It therefore extracts the necessary A from the object and returns it. */
class HandlerForStoredResponseRequests <B extends Request<A>, A extends Response> implements Handler<B, A> {
     public A execute(B sreq) {
          return ((StoredResponseRequest<A>)sreq).getStoredResponse();
class Test {
     public static void main(String[] argz) {
          Request<Response> request = new StoredResponseRequest<Response>(new SpecificResponse());
          System.out.println( execute(request).message() );
     public static <T extends Request<E>, E extends Response> E execute(T request) {
          Handler<T, E> stuffHandler = new HandlerForStoredResponseRequests<T, E>();
          return stuffHandler.execute(request);
}

Generic interface in abstract super class

hello java folks!
i have a weird problem with a generics implementation of an interface which is implemented in an abstract class.
if i extend from this abstract class and try to override the method i get this compiler error:
cannot directly invoke abstract method...
but in my abstract super class this method is not implemented as abstract!
do i have an error in my understanding how to work with generics or is this a bug in javac?
(note: the message is trown by the eclipse ide, but i think it has someting to do with javac...)
thanks for every hint!
greetings daniel
examples:
public interface MyInterface <T extends Object> {
   public String testMe(T t);
public abstract class AbstractSuperClass<T extends AbstractSuperClass> implements MyInterface<T> {
   public String testMe(T o) {
      // do something with o...
      // now we have a String str
      return str;
public final class SubClass extends AbstractSuperClass<SubClass> {
   @Override
   public String testMe(SubClass o)
      return super.testMe(o);
}

Hi Wachtda,
Firstly, T extends Object is redundant as all classes implicitly extend the Object class.
Therefore :
public interface MyInterface <T> {
   public String testMe(T t);
}Secondly, abstract classes may have both abstract and non-abstract instance methods. Also, two methods, one abstract and one non-abstract, must have a different signature.
The following example will give a compile error because the methods share the same signature :
abstract class Test {
     public void sayHello() {
          System.out.println("Hello");
     abstract public void sayHello();
}Therefore, to make an interface method as abstract would simply block the possibility of implementing it.
BTW, you can do this :
abstract class Test {
     public void sayHello() {
          System.out.println("Hello");
     abstract public void sayHello(String name);
}Finally, there's no bug in javac.

Help inheriting multiple generic interfaces of same type

Hi-
I am trying to re-factor some current code bloat.
Here is the solution I want
I want to define one generic subscriber interface, e.g.
public interface Subscriber <TYPE> {
public void valueChanges (TYPE T) ;
And then I would like to (in theory) implements a class like this
public class MyClass extends foo implements Subscriber<String> ,
Subscriber <Integer> , Subscriber <Double> {
public void valueChanged (String s) {
public void valueChanged (Integer s) {
public void valueChanged (Double s) {
But this does not seem to be allowed becuase it says you can not inherit the
same interface multiple times. I even tried something like this
public interface Stringsubscriber implements Subscriber <String> for all the
interfaces to specialize. That does not work.
Can this be done (via some mechanism) in java or is this not possible.
I am just learning the way generics work (I come from c++ world were templates
are a bit more flexible and work a bit differently so its trying).
Any hlep would be great.
thanks in advance
matt

OK, Bruce, I'll bite: how do you attach
parameterized types as annotation member values?
There's no ".class" for them. It must be textual,
, right? No.
Actually I don't attach them as such, I put them somewhere else where I can find them by association.
And you parse these stringual declarations
later?The mirror API does not have an equivalent method to com.sun..javadoc.ClassDoc.findClass(String name), so you can't do it textually unless you require every type to be fully qualified. Thats too ugly for me.
I tried writing a recursive annotation like this@interface Type {
    Class<?> value();
    Type[] args() default {};
}but you can't write cyclic annotations (whose members are of its own type, directly or indirectly).
So I thought that since I was annotating a class, I would just create some placeholder interfacesinterface S2WFGC1<T1> {}
interface S2WFGC2<T1,T2> {}
thru
interface S2WFGC15<T1,T2,... T15> {}and do this
    @MyAnnotation(base=Map.class, add=@Flavor(EventDispatcher.class))
class MyClass implements S2WFGC2<
                Map<String,Integer>,
                EventDispatcher<FooListener,FooEvent>
            > {
}which gets interpreted as
    @MyAnnotation(
        base=Map<String,Integer>,
        add=@Flavor(EventDispatcher<FooListener,FooEvent>)
class MyClass {}So I just put the raw type in the annotation, and for each of those (because the annotation is more complex than above), I get the type parameters from the S2WFGCn interface. I just use whichever S2WFGCn interface has the right number of type parameters.
For each type in the annotation, if it is generic, I just read the next type argument from the S2WFGCn superinterface and use that instead (but error if its raw type is not the same as the annotation value). Each S2WFGCn actually extends S2WFGC, which makes it easy to find the S2WFGCn amongst (possibly other) superinterfaces.
The S2WFGCn interfaces are sort of marker interfaces, but as well as having no methods, they also have no meaning. They are more like a variable for holding an array of types at the meta level.
Sorry, but thats the best I can come up with. Its not pretty for sure, and I'd rather have a nicer mechanism, but for this application at least, the benefits are still positive, since in most cases there are no generic classes, so all the trickery disappears, and when there are generics, the ends justify the means.
If only the JSR-175 EG had realised that generics was a meta type of the language...
This was their biggest failure by a country mile.

Generic interfaces

Given the interface and class below, why do I get an "unexpected type" error when I compile IncEnter?
public interface Funcion <T>
            public T aplicar(T n);
public class IncEnter implements Funcion<int>
            public int aplicar(int n){
                        return n + 1;
Thanks!

Ok...
   public interface Funcion
      public int aplicar(int n);
public class Doble implements Funcion
     public int aplicar(int n){
          return n + n;
public class Incrementar implements Funcion
     public int aplicar(int n){
          return n + 1;
public class Map1
     public void map(Funcion fun, int[] lista){
          for(int i=0; i<lista.length; i++)
               lista[i] = fun.aplicar(lista);
public class UsaMap1
     public static void main(String [] args){
          int[] lista = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
          Map1 m = new Map1();
          Funcion f = new Incrementar();
          m.map(f,lista);
          for (int i=0; i<lista.length; i++)
               System.out.println(lista);
          System.out.println("---");
          f = new Doble();
          m.map(f,lista);
          for (int i=0; i<lista.length; i++)
               System.out.println(lista[i]);
          System.out.println("---");
I want a generic version of the function map (which implies that "Funcion" must be generic too) and I don't know how to do it...

Problem while using Generic interface.Help!

package cn.com.landstar.violet;
import java.util.*;
interface ITextContainer implements Iterable<String>
     void append(String newStr);
     void clear();
     Iterator<String> iterator();
the error messages point out that
Line3 and Line9 need "{"and "}",

interfaces can't implement anything, they can extend other interfaces.

Tutorial for make a non-generic type class from a generic type interface

Hi there,
How can I make a non-generic type class from a generic type interface?
I appreciate if somebody let me know which site can help me.
Regards
Maurice

I have a generic interface with this signature
public interface IELO<K extends IMetadataKey>
and I have implemented a class from it
public class CmsELOImpl<K extends IMetadataKey> implements IELO<K>, Cloneable, Serializable
then I have to pass class of an instance CmsELOImpl to AbstractJcrDAO class constructor whit below signature
public abstract class AbstractJcrDAO<T> implements JcrDAO<T> {
public AbstractJcrDAO( Class<T> entityClass, Session session, Jcrom jcrom ) {
          this(entityClass, session, jcrom, new String[0]);
So I have made another class extended from AbstractJcrDAO. Below shows the code of this class and itd constructor
public class ELODaoImpl extends AbstractJcrDAO<CmsELOImpl<IMetadataKey>> {
     public ELODaoImpl( Session session, Jcrom jcrom ) {
     super(CmsELOImpl.class , session , jcrom, MIXIN_TYPES);
and as you see in its constructor I am calling the AbstractJcrDAO constructor by supper method
then I got this error on the line of super method
The constructor AbstractJcrDAO(class<CmsELOImpl>, session, Jcrom, String[]) is undefined.
as I know java generics are implemented using type erasure. This generics are only
in the java source file and not in the class files. The generics are only used by the compiler and
they are erased from the class files. This is done to make generics compatible with (old) non generics java code.
As a result the class object of AbstractJcrDAO<CmsELOImpl<IMetadataKey>>
is AbstractJcrDAO.class. The <CmsELOImpl<IMetadataKey>> information is
not available in the class file. As far as I understand it, I am looking a way
to pass <CmsELOImpl<IMetadataKey>>, if it is possible at all.
Maurice

Interface Mapping not found in interface determination

Hello experts,
I am facing a very basic problem in my scenario which is stoping me from moving forward.
In interface determination when i select the inbound interface and then try to select the interface mapping, nothing is shown in the value help.
this is happening for all my scenarios even though the IR configurations are correct and I have also refreshed the cache.
What can be the problem? some installation problem, SLd prob or IR??? Please help as i am stuck!!
Thanks a lot in advance.
Yash

Hi Yash,
This is really very strange despite of most probable solutions.
Can you do one thing delete all configuration objects in Directory and activate. Now in repostiory remove mapping programs(message mapping and interface maaping) and activate.
Check the message types and data types and message interfaces.
Specially in message interfaces check whether correct message types are assigned. If so proceed with new mapping programs and activate the objects.
Also do a fresh configuration in ID, activate and execute your scenario.
One question, can you give a arrow diagram of scenario(e.g. file>xi>JMS)
Thanks,
Gujjeti

Routing of messages to different interfaces via HTTP using one single URL.

Hi all,
I'm working on an inbound scenario. Messages are coming to SAP via HTTP adapter and i'm using a unique URL of every interface. But what is required is one single URL for all interfaces without any dropbox in PI, i.e. all messages will be pushed to one URL and i have to route them to their respective interfaces, there is no storage involved in PI box.

Shamit2903 wrote:
Hi all,
>
> I'm working on an inbound scenario. Messages are coming to SAP via HTTP adapter and i'm using a unique URL of every interface. But what is required is one single URL for all interfaces without any dropbox in PI, i.e. all messages will be pushed to one URL and i have to route them to their respective interfaces, there is no storage involved in PI box.
logically this is not a possibility.
But in case you are looking at a generic interface then you will have to handle this using;
1. a generic Data type to accommodate all required structures
2. use conditional routing in configuration to execute further transformations.
I wouldnt recommend this though.

Clarification regarding WLC 's interfaces

Hi Netpros,
I am about to deploy WLC and LWAPP solution. I have only done Autonomous set up in the past and so would appreciated some clarification regardig the below points:
1.- switch port connected to LWAPP access points must be an access port (not trunk) correct ?
2.- switch port connected to WLC 44+ must be a trunk (assuming I need to map SSID to different vlans) correct ?
3.- WLC 44+ port can only be connected to a gigabit port .. so I can't change its speed in order to connect it to a fastethernet port .. correct ?
4.- What exactly is Management interface, service port, AP manager ..etc so many names I am getting confused.
5.- What is layer 2 and layer 3 mode .. I am also confused here.
6.- If I want all my LWAPP access points on vlan 10 (for argument sake) .. which WLC's interface do I need to place on vlan 10 in order for the access points to register ? I want to have LWAPP and WLC on the same vlan but with so many inteface names I don't know which one I have to use (AP manager ? perhaps )
7.- If I want SSID 1 (vlan 11), SSID 2 (VLAN 22). How do I configure the WLC interfaces (which one do I need to use .. create ..?) so that clients using SSID 1 can communicate on its respective VLAN 11
8.- Microsoft IAS and PEAP .. do I need to set up every access point as radius client ? or do I only need to configure the WLC as radius client .. and if so which WLC interface's IP address do I need to use on the radius server (IAS)
I apologize for so many questions and really appreciate your feedback which - as always - I am sure will make things clear.
Cheers,

1.- switch port connected to LWAPP access points must be an access port (not trunk) correct ?
(A) Correct, Cisco recommends no more then 70 or so APs per VLAN. You can do more then 70 and in fact put all of your APs in the same VLAN. But if the controller ever goes dark it could take a bit longer for the APs to join.
2.- switch port connected to WLC 44+ must be a trunk (assuming I need to map SSID to different vlans) correct ?
(A) Yup yup. You can truck the switch or Echannel it and use LAG on the controller.
3.- WLC 44+ port can only be connected to a gigabit port .. so I can't change its speed in order to connect it to a fastethernet port .. correct ?
(A) Yup yup. again. GIG only. Wont connect otherwise.
4.- What exactly is Management interface, service port, AP manager ..etc so many names I am getting confused.
(A)
Manager is the IP address you will use to manage the controller. Its the way the controller see's the world.
AP Manger is used for the APs to phone home to. This interface is not pingable. Nothing special with this interface.
Service Port ... think about out of service management for the WLC. Suppose you lose network connection to the WLC manager interface. You can jack right into the service port. I have also put this on the network before so you can still access the WLC remotely.
5.- What is layer 2 and layer 3 mode .. I am also confused here.
(A)
Layer 2 --- Think about deploying your entire WLAN on one subet. So your APs and WLC are all in the same subnet.
Layer 3 -- This is used when you have your APs on other subnets ect..
You can actually console into the LWAPP ap during the join process. you will see the AP send a 255.255.255.255. This is a join attempt by the AP to find a controller on its subnet.
6.- If I want all my LWAPP access points on vlan 10 (for argument sake) .. which WLC's interface do I need to place on vlan 10 in order for the access points to register ? I want to have LWAPP and WLC on the same vlan but with so many inteface names I don't know which one I have to use (AP manager ? perhaps )
(A) The beauty of the WLC is you dont have to have the APs on the same VLAN as the controller, unless u are layer 2. The access layer teh APs are on just need to be routable to the AP interface.
7.- If I want SSID 1 (vlan 11), SSID 2 (VLAN 22). How do I configure the WLC interfaces (which one do I need to use .. create ..?) so that clients using SSID 1 can communicate on its respective VLAN 11
(A)
You map the SSID to VLAN under the WLANs tab. You Create the wired side info (VLANS) under the controller tab
8.- Microsoft IAS and PEAP .. do I need to set up every access point as radius client ? or do I only need to configure the WLC as radius client .. and if so which WLC interface's IP address do I need to use on the radius server (IAS)
(A) Advantage of the WLC, you use the WLC as the client to a Raduis server. The management address..
I apologize for so many questions and really appreciate your feedback which - as always - I am sure will make things clear.
Cheers,

Specialized vs. Generic Interfaces?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for