directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Emmanuel Lecharny" <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How to separate LDAP protocol handler?
Date Fri, 19 May 2006 15:34:26 GMT
Hi !

we have already saw your first post, sorry that nobody replied, but a
lot of ADS developpers are at JavaOne currently...

You will have to wait a few days :(

However, for what you are doing, may be the best would be just to
erase the content of each handlers (Bind, Search) and to map your own
logic inside. Just keep   the objects that you receive which contains
the request values.

Modifying the Map does not really make sense as the handlers are
tightly related to Ldap operations.

Do you need to use a LdapContext at all?

Emmanuel

On 5/17/06, Jaka Jaksic <jaka.jaksic@asolsme.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> We've been trying, with no luck, to accomplish something that should be
> quite simple. What we want to do is to create a tiny LDAP server serving
> simple read-only content (a list of users) from our database. According to
> ApacheDS homepage, that should be easily doable by using only the LDAP
> protocol provider, which is supposed to be nicely separable from the rest of
> the product. However, everything seems to be very tightly coupled, to the
> point where I find this seemingly simple task pretty much impossible to do
> (at least without nasty hacking).
>
> I'm pretty sure we're missing something here, but we couldn't find any
> useful documentation on this topic, and also the link to Alex's presentation
> on ApacheCon04 (which is supposed explain the architecture and integration
> in greater detail) doesn't work.
>
> Here's what we found out about the code so far, which I think prevents the
> protocol handler from being used separately:
>
> 1. LdapProtocolHandler creates the handlers in a static block and places
> them in an unmodifiable map, which prevents handlers from being replaced.
>
> 2. SearchHandler seems to depend on ServerLdapContext (ctx = (
> ServerLdapContext ) unknown), which prevents using another LdapContext
> implementation.
>
> 3. DefaultDirectoryService and DefaultDirectoryServiceConfiguration are
> package private and rewriting them from scratch seems like a lot of
> unnecessary work.
>
> All we would really need is to just plug in our own LdapContext or
> SearchHandler and remove the underlying directory implementation. Or
> something which would provide the same effect.
>
> I'll be very grateful for any kind of advice!
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Jaka
>
>


-- 
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny

Mime
View raw message