directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enrique Rodriguez <enriqu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [discussion] Lowering barrier for perspective committers
Date Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:31:30 GMT
Jörg Henne wrote:
...
> Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>> I think that it should be very clear : ADS want to be a LDAP server, 
>> LdapV3 compliant, written in Java. This is it. Ok, there are other 
>> targets, too, like being a good place to experiment X500 extensions, 
>> etc, but first we must get this 1.0 release out ! We need to be rock 
>> solid. We need to be simple to use.
 >
> Well, kerberos, NTP, DHCP et. al. go way beyond LDAP. But that's ok, 
> since that is coherent with the long-term goal to be able to replace 
> MS-AD. But besides that I strongly sympathize with the "rock solid" and 
> "simple to use" goals, since we (my team) intend to use ADS in 
> production environments in the not-so-distant future.

IMO, one of the best changes we can make to ensure core stability is to 
rev and release the core and protocol providers separately.  Right now 
everything is together as one trunk and thus one version number.  Yet, 
we have a desire to release a stable JNDI provider in the short term and 
we have protocol providers such as DHCP and DNS which are just not at 
the level of stability of Kerberos and Change Password.

The protocol providers are written against a few very stable API's, 
namely JNDI, MINA, and, in the case of the OSGi bundles, API's from OSGi 
such as the OSGi Framework and Config Admin service.  The approach taken 
with the protocol providers matches nicely with the philosophy of 
decoupling in general and in particular the conventions in Peter's blog 
post on service design.

Enrique

Mime
View raw message