directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <>
Subject Re: Question about project names.
Date Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:56:00 GMT
Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Dec 28, 2004, at 6:22 PM, Trustin Lee wrote:
>> I'm the author of MINA (Multipurpose Infrastructure for Network
>> Applications) subproject in Apache Directory project.  We are checking
>> our project names before releasing them.  I checked the name 'MINA',
>> and I found three trademark holders.  None of them are software or IT
>> companies.
>> I found two non-US companis whose names are 'Mina software' and 'MINA
>> systems' and Forth language interpreter called ''.

> FYI, I really don't like this trend of independent projects being created
> within umbrella projects.  If you are creating a generic toolkit then
> it should be incubated as a separate project.  

This toolkit was in part derived from the shortcommings of the seda 
subproject.  Originally there was an ldap frontend that was protocol 
specific.  We made it independent of protocol and called it seda so 
other servers can use it. MINA is a complete rewrite of the frontend 
code to solve some of the problems with the seda implementation.

Our intention is not to create all these projects under the Directory 
umbrella to mask anything.  There is no need to presume anyone is trying 
to dupe the ASF.  What is happening is a consequence of writing code 
that can be reusable.  Plus this is a vast subject area.  Directories 
are founded on ASN.1, OSI, TCP/IP and other concepts.  We're not 
building a small library here.  There's just so much that goes into 
building a directory server.  A great example is the ASN.1 code.  It is 
reusable and can be used for protocols other than LDAP like SNMP.  I 
would imagine that it could be split off to become standalone.  This is 
the problem of dealing with such a large effort which depends on so many 
other technologies.  What are we to do?

Personally I speaking for myself I have a hand in all these projects 
minus naming.  There is cross reactivity of other individuals as well.

> IMO there are too many
> single-developer products being masked under the Directory umbrella,
> rather than a coherent group of individuals working together on a
> single product (and thus having sufficient voters to make collaborative
> decisions about that product).  

Ok perhaps you're right. But we need all these peices. Perhaps we should 
just incubate a little longer or split it all up.  Directory is slated 
to be a TLP project and subprojects underneath it are expected.  However 
I do recommend budding some things off.  For example seda (or whatever 
it is to be called), MINA, sedang can go into a newtorking toolkit 
effort.  I just did not want to do it now since we created it for Eve in 
the incubator.

Jakarta gave birth to several projects because of the size of the 
undertaking and the same has happened to us.  Question is how do we 
manage this.  Right now Trustin and Berin have taken a massive load off 
of of the LDAP specific focus by taking care of the networking code.  
I'm glad its happening to free up minds to put more energy on LDAP 
specific stuff.  Wes McKean helped with the project formerly known as 
Snickers and Alan Cabrera is helping too so this also takes load off.  
You see the trend I'm sure.

> This is just my concern, but please
> understand that we didn't create Directory in order for it to become
> another Jakarta or Avalon.

Are you suggesting we split Directory apart into separate projects 
within the incubator?  We could do that.  We could split most of it 
appart.  We could put all the frontend stuff together as one project for 
a set of networking toolkits. I think this has enough critical mass in 
terms of interest and users to graduate quickly.  We could split the 
naming, asn.1and kerberos subprojects into separate projects to be 
incubated separately.  Then we can split ldap and eve (renamed of 
course) into the real Directory project.  The ASN.1 stuff (old Snickers) 
can also be split off.  Likewise the Kerberos server should be split too.

BTW I asked on #asf to see what people's opinions are.  Noel and Brett 
Porter thought it makes sense to keep it together since thsee projects 
are all interrelated and used.  Personally I would rather address your 
concerns now and split if we have to.  We can still work with this code 
to build an LDAP server even if it is in different incubator projects.  
It will just be inconvenient but hardly impossible to do.


View raw message