Yeah Chris I agree with you totally but wanted to point out the OSGi option.
OSGi has an http service that we could use, and I think there are also a lot of new things coming that will make this even better down the road. I want to do OSGi as much as anyone, but I really think waiting is the right thing to do. Embedding Jetty is a piece of cake anyway, and I like your ideas to make the dependency optional.
ChrisOn 5/16/07, Alex Karasulu < firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:For some time now a few people have been discussing embedding an HTTP service into ApacheDS for
a number of reasons:
(1) to expose a DSML service
(2) host a web based configuration and management interface
(3) for first start configuration
(4) for other self service interfaces useful for directory users
Just this morning I responded to an email from Peter Neubauer regarding #4 to have a simple
self service application so users can manage various aspects of their account. Such an application
would be trivial to implement if ApacheDS came with an optional HTTP service which could be
enabled via it's configuration.
After this email Emmanuel and I had a brief conversation about this. We discussed how
easy it would be to integrate Jetty with ApacheDS since this was already done for Triplesec.
Furthermore we discussed how just having the service present would allow other parties to
extend ApacheDS functionality for custom use in their environments.
I have several things on my plate at the moment but I think I should try to grok this in the
next day or two just to the open the door to these other possibilities.
Adding this new service to ApacheDS will impose some additional dependencies since the
service will be optionally started by the server side JNDI provider using the configuration.
Namely there will be a dependency on Jetty even if this service is not turned on. There are
several ways to avoid this dependency.
(1) Leverage OSGi to just provide the service in a decoupled fashion
(2) Add a "plugin" mechanism into the server-jndi module to load protocol
providers dynamically at runtime
Both approaches have pros and cons. The first will take time until we get to OSGi. The
second requires additional work which would be redundant once an OSGi container is used.
For these reasons I think it might be best if we just add this dependency for now and refactor
later depending on what happens in the future.