directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r543905 - /directory/apacheds/trunk/server-main/server.xml
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2007 01:26:38 GMT
Enrique Rodriguez a écrit :

> On 6/5/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <> wrote:
> We had two threads, called "[SASL] SASL configuration" and "[SASL]
> SASL configuration, part 2."  I ask, respectfully, that you re-read
> those threads.  In both threads we discuss changes to the Ldap
> configuration, such that there would be an LdapConfiguration bean
> under the StartupConfiguration bean.  In fact, in the lead message of
> "[SASL] SASL configuration" I ask about moving maxSizeLimit and
> maxTimeLimit to StartupConfiguration.  I don't think there should have
> been any surprise here.  

Do you expect that a micro modification buried in hundred of lines of 
code and dozens of mails  will immediatly be remembered ?

> Moreover, during the review of the SASL
> branch there were positive comments made about the new protocol
> configuration.  

We were positive, because it's a good idea. However, we asked to differ 
the configuration modification, until SASL code was stable.

Alex asked you months ago to add one features after another, to be sure 
that everything was ok. We are working on a 400 KLOC server, with 8 
committers interacting and working on different parts, and each time we 
inject some new code, we have to be extremelly cautious about the 
consequences of those changes. The more changes at the same time, the 
worst it can goes if something is wrong. I think Alex was right, and 
that it should apply to all of us.

> I really tried to be open, and on the public mailing
> list, to discuss my changes before I made them.  

And we appreciate that.

> In end result of
> these threads still appears to me to be positive concensus for an
> LdapConfiguration bean.


Yes, but we also told you the next day that we should wait before 
include it :

Again, it's not about the fact that your modifications were bad per se, 
but it was bad timing.

Consider that adding one feature after the other one, step by step, is a 
better way to go.

Anyway, we can discuss ad nauseam about configuration, exhibit mails 
going in both directions, but I want to remind you that my original mail 
was about something totally different, and I was stuck by these 
modifications too. It was a little bit too much for me to handle at this 

I'm just trying to avoid such problems to arise again, because I have 
lost a lot of time to understand what has happened, and without the doco 
you posted on monday, plus the numerous mails we have exchanged, I would 
have been stuck more longer.

Small modifications, limited modifications are better.

The timing was wrong, too. Maybe we should have told you to wait for 
1.5.1 to be released (or close to be), but this is not expected before 
at least one month.

Anyway, sh*t happens. Let clean the place now, and switch to the next 
step. We can spend hours on such mails, I'm not sure they carry a lot of 
added value (mine included, of course)

The problem is over, let's move on !


View raw message