Mailing-List: contact directory-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List"
 <directory-dev@incubator.apache.org>
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Message-ID: <4025D03E.5030504@steitz.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:59:26 -0700
From: "Phil Steitz" <phil@steitz.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <directory-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [jndi] JNDI support in James server
References: <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPGEOAHCAB.noel@devtech.com>
In-reply-to: <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPGEOAHCAB.noel@devtech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> The James project in the process of merging our two major branches.  As soon
> as we finish that effort, I would like to start with basic J2EE style JNDI
> support in James.  Just a start, so that a Mailet can do things like:
> 
>   InitialContext iCtx = new InitialContext();
>   DataSource ds = (DataSource) iCtx.lookup("java:comp/env/jdbc/ds");
>   String listName = (String) iCtx.lookup("java:comp/env/list/name");
> 
> in similar fashion to resources in Tomcat.  I would like the ability to have
> both global resources and per-component (or at least classloader) resources.
> 
> This is just a first phase.  Once running, I'd like to add support for a
> writeable DirContext, although I don't know what backend technologies we
> have available in the near tern other than the LDAP service provider.
> 
> I'm expecting that this will involve the naming components, rather than the
> LDAP server code, for the moment.  So ... anyone up for helping us to do
> that?  :-)

Count me in.  Most of this should be possible using Naming.  It will be 
good to use this as a test case to understand what kinds of configuration, 
scoping, access, etc. we should provide in Naming.  This will also provide 
us the opportunity to think through how the in-memory provider should 
(eventually) relate to the LDAP backend.

I will add some more tests and docs for Naming this weekend which should 
illustrate a little better what is available now.

Phil
> 
> 	--- Noel
>