directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <>
Subject Re: DHCP Protocol Home (was: Re: [Vote] Sandboxing DHCP protocol)
Date Tue, 12 Jun 2007 06:15:44 GMT
Hi Trustin,

On 6/12/07, Trustin Lee <> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> On 6/12/07, Alex Karasulu <> wrote:
> > The question is not where DHCP will go. It's definitely slated for
> > inclusion in ApacheDS to fullfil the Realm Controller concepts.
> > So, this is not a matter of whether or not it deserves to be here at
> > Directory. I don't want to turn this into that kind of discussion.
> > This is just a matter of maturity and documentation I think.
> >
> > IMO MINA should not be the place to host all protocols. It can for
> > some time host protocols specific projects that do not have critical
> > community mass (like Asynchweb) until they blossom. But to try to
> > build MINA out to be a massive TLP in this way is a big mistake and
> > will result in the same issues that have confronted Jakarta. Keeping
> >
> the TLP lean and mean will keep it functional. I'd love tho to see
> > protocol analyzers and other protocol development tooling sub-projects
> > start at MINA tho.
> Well, DHCP can be used for other purposes, too.

DHCP is for dynamic configuration whether used by network clients or
by applications.  It does not need t be used by just network hosts.  However
essentially it's usage is to access some configuration parameters that
are centrally managed somewhere on the network.   So I don't know what
else besides configuration access it would be used for.  Is there some other
usage besides this and the basis for SLP that you're considering DHCP?

So, in the same
> context, Directory project doesn't absolutely need to host it, either,

No one absolutely needs to host it but at the present moment the best home
it has is at Directory.  I explain why below.

The nature of this kind of data (configuration attributes) is relatively
static yet
shared across networks.  Common shared information which is read more
than it is written is idea for backing in LDAP.  Plus LDAP can manage the
constraints (syntax) on the information unlike a flat file.  So as you can
see LDAP is the ideal backing store.  I cannot find better use case for
storing this kind of information in any other store.  LDAP is ideal for it.

Furthermore ApacheDS is not just a Directory server.  It's intended
to be a replacement for Windows 2k+ servers in a single process.  This is
all why me made protocols pluggable in MINA.  It was one of the primary
so we could make other protocols like Kerberos snap in to yield a server
that could do what a Windows server does today without all the moving parts.

because Directory project doesn't absolutely need to be the place to
> host all related protocol codecs such as DNS, DHCP, and Kerberos, and
> that's why we are sandboxing some protocols that we can't maintain.
> Of course, it never means that Directory project doesn't deserve to
> host those protocols; they are quite related with LDAP.  It's a matter
> of point of view, and I understand your opinion and my opinion can be
> different.

Of course :).

I never believe MINA project team can adopt DHCP or other protocol
> codecs right now because we are very busy enough working on various
> transports and modifying the core.  It will be quite far future when
> we consider whether we provide many protocol codecs including
> essential ones that boosts network application development (i.e. HTTP,

If you notice my earlier post to the incubator list suggesting that FTP
may find a good home in MINA.  So it just depends on what can facilitate
certain situations at different times.  Hopefully community can build around
everything but sometimes that takes serious time.  Until then the best
home is where the most synergy is at the moment.  There are no absolutes
in these matters: it's very fuzzy and we can at best align things that make
sense one day but not forever.


View raw message