directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christine Koppelt" <christine.kopp...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [Triplesec] Thinking of a quick rewrite
Date Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:34:44 GMT
Hi Alex,

i'm interested in (0),(1) and (4).
Starting from next week friday ...
(1) should probably be done first or last, when there are no pending commits

Christine


2007/7/3, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org>:
> Hi all,
>
> For the past couple days I've been looking at migrating Triplesec packages
> and just
> cleaning up the project as a whole since it is pretty much a prototype as it
> stands
> right now.  There are a few things in Triplesec that I have problems with:
>
> (0) bring all NOTICE and LICENSE files up to date with review
> (1) It package names are not org.apache.directory.triplesec based
> (2) It uses ApacheDS 1.0.3 and I would like to start using 1.5.x
> (3) It has Jetty integration which I would like to move into ApacheDS and
> inherit
> (4) The schema is a mess and needs to be cleaned up as well as massaged to
> not use
>      safehaus prefixes.
> (5) server.xml file handling to reconfigure the server is a mess with dom4j
> based loading
>      and rewriting so DIT based configuration can significantly clean up
> this mess
> (6) junit extensions for integration testing is causing issues on windows
> and failing
>      even on linux due to some maven peculiarities with classloaders
> (7) very poor logging
> (8) lack of HOTP parameterization per account
> (9) I would like to remove the interceptor used for referential integrity
> and replace it
>      with triggers and stored procedures
> (10) I want the maven build to work using all the tricks we learned to stop
> maven
>       from changing under our feet with snapshotted plugins
> (11) rework the installers to use Chris' work with Tanuki and the various
> installers
>
> Right now I would like to build flexibility into the schema and the format
> to support
> multiple realms.  Also I would like to consider flexibility to support JACC
> however
> it's not the primary aim for now and can be ignored for this quick rewrite.
>
> After assessing where we are and what we have to do a rewrite may take less
> effort
> than wrestling with all the problems we have.  Also note that some key
> libraries need
> not be completely rewritten.
>
> I have the month of July only to do this if I do set out to do it.  I also
> need some help
>  but this rewrite gives a bunch of us (especially the new comers) a chance
> to get up
> to speed with Triplesec.
>
> So now I have a few questions for the community:
>
> (1) Should we do this rewrite which will take a couple weeks off our
> schedule but
>      may give significant advantages in the future?
> (2) Who is interested in tackling this with me?
>
> If we have enough people and agreement then we can just jump in and get
> started.
>
> Alex
>
>

Mime
View raw message