directory-api mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arvind N <Arvin...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: Using LDAPConnection class...
Date Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:31:36 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emmanuel L├ęcharny [mailto:elecharny@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 8:20 PM
> To: api@directory.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Using LDAPConnection class...
> 
>   On 9/6/10 4:34 PM, Arvind N wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Emmanuel Lecharny [mailto:elecharny@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 7:54 PM
> >> To: api@directory.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Using LDAPConnection class...
> >>
> >>    On 9/6/10 4:02 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> >>> AD accepts either
> >>> - the full DN, that looks typically like "cn=Arvind
> >>> N,cn=Users,dc=MyDomain,dc=com"
> >>> - or the samAccountName and the domain in format "Arvind N@DOMAIN"
> >>>
> >>> @Emmanuel, Kiran:
> >>> JXplorer makes the same as Apache Directory Studio: It uses JNDI
> and
> >>> JNDI accepts a non-DN as principal. I think we should allow the
> same
> >>> for the new API. WDYT?
> >> I wonder if the LDAP API screams if you use "Arvind N@DOMAIN" as a
> >> principal. Blind guess : we expect a DN, and we throw an excpetion
> if
> >> it's not. We can fix that.
> >>
> >> In any case, there is no chance that what Arvin used can work, as
> it's
> >> nor a valid DN  (ie a full DN), nor a samAccountName. I guess that
> >> JExplorer is guessing about the root context to use (ie, it adds
> >> cn=Users, ... to the given DN).
> > @Kiran, Emmanuel, Stefan
> >
> > First of all thanks for the responses..
> >
> > I think JExplorer is letting the LDAP server (AD in this case) decide
> the KEY here.
> > In the ethereal trace I see it just sets the exact string of what I
> have provided without putting a key to it as in
> >
> >
> > Rather does a
> > ...
> > DN: Arvind N
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> > ...
> >
> > Also once I get the full DN I will try and use the same and verify if
> LDAPConnection works fine..
> > Just checked out the API code to hack more and I see LDAPConnection
> is an interface now :(
> > LDAPNetworkConnection seems to have the magic now .. am I missing
> something ??
> 
> yes, we have split the LdapConnection into two implementations, one
> which is network based, and another one when you embed the server.
> 
> In your case, use the LdapNetworkConnection class.


So in release after the present 0.1, this is what would be released ?? 
And when is it being planned ?? 

~A
Mime
View raw message