On Aug 9, 2007, at 4:50 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:Hi David,On 8/9/07, David Jencks <email@example.com> wrote:As far as I can tell from looking at svn basically nothing happened
with this effort and from the original note now july is over so Alex
doesn't have time to work on it any more?
No I intend to work on it but I realized that other things also need to be done
to make this rewrite successful so I began working on those matters. Now
I am a bit off line but will get back into the groove shortly.
I'm going to resume working on my sandbox triplesec-jacc. I'm going
to start by:
Well we discussed several issues with the schema and the way we use
groups. There is more discussion required on this topic but feel free to
keep working on it since I have gained some insite on several things by
looking into this branch. However also note that we have done some
pkg refactoring in the triplesec trunk already which also is not part of
any rewrite.I'm not so against groups as I was the last time we talked :-)- change package to o.a.d.triplesec
- change the OIDs to ones appropriate for apache.
Yeah I think we did this or need to definately.- use maven-remote-resources-plugin for LICENSE/NOTICE files
Ohhhh more to learn from your branch :).- remove admin ui with the intention of using ldap studio instead
Ahh yes we must do this eventually yes yes.- use triggers instead of the interceptors (if I can figure out how
and there is enough support for them in trunk)
Aye this will clean up much craptastic code.- figure out how to use xbean-spring to configure the server
Ooohh this is where we differe I will start removign Spring and
start pushing the configuration into the DIT. THis will reduce
more code in Tsec.well... good luck :-) but this isn't a good place to discuss this issue.- model more of the NIST RBAC model (see http://csrc.nist.gov/rbac/
Yes this is where I need to do some research as well. But I have some
nice ideas here with how to deal with permission extension without compromising
specificity for a specific language or platform.
My copy was running against apacheds 1.5 back in january but it
doesn't compile any more due to big changes in interceptor
interfaces. I think that using triggers should make it less
sensitive to such interface changes.
Aye agreed.I'd be happy to move this either to the rewrite branch or to geronimo
depending on whether the community thinks this direction is worth
exploring or is definitely of interest only for geronimo.
I definitely think we can merge our efforts but we need better collaboration. I
blame myself for slipping here so please forgive me on this. Also the communication
has been somewhat poor. I think we can balance the jacc vision without compromising
generalized usage.One question I have is how to assign appropriate oids to the schema
elements. Previously I was just incrementing existing numbers but
this is obviously not quite correct to get the OIDs to be correct for
apache. I'd definitely appreciate some advice on this point.
Take a look here:
HTH.That's quite useful but not quite definitive :-). I guess the first thing is to check if triplesec trunk has update the oids...looks like "no".
So should triplesec (lets assume we can merge our efforts) get184.108.40.206.4.1.18060.0.4.6and then220.127.116.11.4.1.18060.0.4.X.0 ApacheDS LDAP Schema syntaxes18.104.22.168.4.1.18060.0.4.X.1 ApacheDS LDAP Schema matchingRules22.214.171.124.4.1.18060.0.4.X.2 ApacheDS LDAP Schema attributeTypes126.96.36.199.4.1.18060.0.4.X.3 ApacheDS LDAP Schema objectClasses188.8.131.52.4.1.18060.0.4.X.4 ApacheDS LDAP Schema dITStructureRules184.108.40.206.4.1.18060.0.4.X.5 ApacheDS LDAP Schema nameFormswhere X == 6 for the different types?
|220.127.116.11.4.1.18060.0.1.0||Tsec LDAP Schema syntaxes|
|18.104.22.168.4.1.18060.0.1.1||Tsec LDAP Schema matchingRules|
|22.214.171.124.4.1.18060.0.1.2||Tsec LDAP Schema attributeTypes|
|126.96.36.199.4.1.18060.0.1.3||Tsec LDAP Schema objectClasses|
|188.8.131.52.4.1.18060.0.1.4||Tsec LDAP Schema dITStructureRules|
|184.108.40.206.4.1.18060.0.1.5||Tsec LDAP Schema nameForms|
I'd like to talk to you more about this and see if we can align better but I don't
blame you for forging ahead due to my lack of participation. Let's just keep
working forward as you are stating and try to keep collaborating and learning
from one another. I'm sure we can find some things of value during this process
even if we cannot merge the code bases. I think it would be premature to split
our effort and short the potential to align at some point.Excellent! I would much prefer to work together on this but pretty much have the impression you don't want me mucking around in triplesec trunk.
If I'm wrong... let me know. I certainly headed down some dead ends on my first attempts and given my general ignorance of ldap I can't do this all by myself.
I think after the stuff I've proposed what is left will be a lot easier to see and we can have an easier time discussing the schema which is really the core to it all.