directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Boorshtein <mboorsht...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: LDAP Proxy backend
Date Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:04:11 GMT
Well,

I'll see if i can put something basic together, though
i can't make any promises as to when :-).

As for the other things, I think the plugin model you
are using is great!  As I understand it it's very
close to servlet filters, correct?  I've built a very
similar system before and it has proven to be most
effective.  

As for stored procedures and triggers, I think they
are interesting, but unnessisary in a directory
product with a servlet-filter like system.  because
the plugins allways stand in the way of information
being written/changed and you can allways "trigger" an
event off of that. 

As for views, thats what virtual directory is all
about :-).  The big issues that are barriers to
apacheds becoming a virtual directory are namespace
overlap and a lack of an ldap proxy.  (DB->LDAP is
nice too, but one step at a time).

What I think would be REALLY interesting (at least
from a developer's perspective) is a way to simplify
the interaction with the directory from inside of a
plugin.     It's very common for IT departments to
invest in specialized libraries for simplifying LDAP
access.  There are also more then a couple of
SQL<->LDAP translation systems, in both Java and ADO. 
It's not something i've put a lot of thought into from
inside of a directory, but i would definitly think it
would help decrease the barier of entry for apacheds.

marc

--- Alex Karasulu <aok123@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Marc Boorshtein wrote:
> 
> >--- "Noel J. Bergman" <noel@devtech.com> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>>Replicas and slaves are designed for single
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>directory
> >>    
> >>
> >>>environments.  A proxy is a step closer to
> >>>virtualization in a multi directory environment
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>(as
> >>    
> >>
> >>>opposed to some kind of synchronization system).
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Would you want to federate at the proxy, or just
> >>have it proxy for multiple
> >>domains independently?
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Yes :-).  I've seen both instances where you
> fedterate
> >multiple directories and when you manage seperate
> >domains without performing any namespace
> translation.
> >
> >it's a building block to virtualization and is one
> of
> >the quickest use cases.
> >  
> >
> Marc, we don't have one yet but as you might imagine
> whiping one 
> together would be trivial.  If you're interested in
> groking this let me 
> know I can lend a hand as you navigate the code
> base?
> 
> Also I'm thinking of creating what I call LDAP views
> and stored procs 
> which would also help as a building block of
> virtualization if you see 
> what I am referring to.  There are several building
> blocks that we need 
> in our palette to make it really easy for building a
> virtual directory.  
> The proxy backend is low hanging fruit for now.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message