directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: Server does not allow anymore simple password
Date Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:43:26 GMT
Enrique Rodriguez a écrit :

> I have to split up this thread to respond to it, since you covered a
> couple points.  Comments below.
> On 6/3/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <> wrote:
>> ...
>> Those two values was simply not accepted because the related members
>> have been removed from the StartupConfiguration class. I can't imagine
>> that it has been unnoticed before committing the code, or I guess that
>> *no* integration tests has been done, or that the server has never been
>> launch, because launching the server with such a configuration leads to
>> a direct crash in one second.
> The two parameters you felt were missing are, in fact, only ever used
> by the SearchHandler.  

Do I have to remind you that LDAP is all about searching ?

> Therefore, in the split of core configuration
> to LdapConfiguration I moved them to LdapConfiguration.  These
> parameters are in the new config doco at:
> I apologize if you think this change wasn't warranted but it does
> reflect how the server is designed.  

I just tried to launch the server, and it immediatly failed. That's why 
I wrote this mail. It's not a design question, it's all about user 
expecting a stable behaviour. We have had this discussion back in march 
about this configuration modification :

Emmanuel Lécharny a écrit :
 >>Enrique Rodriguez wrote :
 >>> On 3/15/07, Alex Karasulu <> wrote:
 >>> Yeah I agree with Emmanuel.  Enrique let's leave the configuration 
as it is
 >>> for now.
 >>> You are after all just trying to add the SASL stuff and getting 
bogged down
 >>> with configuration.
 >> What just happened to LdapConfiguration?  It seemed like an easy part
 >> of the SASL initiative.  Emmanuel brought up good points, and I'm fine
 >> with putting the LdapConfiguration bean under
 >> ServerStartupConfiguration. 
 > This is the perfect place right now. We will reconsider this later, I 
think, because as you said, the actual config does not help > end users. 
But anyway, the urgent things is SASL, not configuration refactoring.

I don't think we agreed on modifying the configuration, so far. It was 
clearly the opposite, for a simple reason : let's go on step by step. 
And the result is that I get trapped one month and a half after with a 
problem we anticipated.

> The fact that there is no unit
> test is bad but there wasn't one before this move.  I think these
> parameters belong on LdapConfiguration and that your change should be
> reverted.  The parameters you added back to StartupConfiguration only
> satisfy your attempt to configure server.xml and they are unused
> during runtime.

I just reverted to a configuration which should have never been changed, 
as we stated it was not urgent. You committed it anyway. I hope you 
simply forgot about what we agreed on.

> I know you are busy and that this change came at a bad time, but in
> Eclipse a quick "right-click | References | Workspace" will show that
> the LdapConfiguration#getMaxSizeLimit and
> LdapConfiguration#getMaxTimeLimit are being used by the SearchHandler.

This is not the point. We are all busy, but we can deal with it, unless 
we have unexpected modifications which were done without agreement. The 
LdapConfiguration modification has been postponed, at least this is what 
I remembered, so I kept the previous configuration as it was, except 
your SASL specific configuration.

Ok, now, one very important thing : this new proposed configuration has 
been evaluated, and we think it's a good thing. We agreed on that. 
Changing it straight without notification, in within a bunch of SASL 
code, was a bad move, because we focused on SASL (which is working well, 
btw), and totally forgot about LdapConfiguration modification. That plus 
the other problems I faced at the same time were a little bit to much 
for me to handle, so my mail.

I really want you to be *cautious* when adding new code, just to be sure 
that this does not happen again. We could perfectly have commit those 
LdapConfiguration changes a week later, smoothly, without all those 
problems. I would have been warned, and I would have changed my 
server.xml without wondering where the problem is coming from.

Let's just work together, interact more, and doing baby steps, for the 
good of community. The way it worked for SASL was just perfect. We have 
had many interactions, we also have discussions about the chain pattern 
which was quite interesting, I really appreciated it. And it was 
*really* good to have SASL into the server, you did a good job on this, 
Enrique. I wish we can work the same way for every part of the server, 
that's all we need.



View raw message