directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Suggestion to get Groovy LDAP restarted
Date Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:24:31 GMT
On 3/14/10 1:39 PM, Stefan Zoerner wrote:
> Hi Brett!
>
> Thanks for your feedback to Groovy LDAP. Currently, I regard it as a 
> proof of concept library. We have added it to the sandbox (and web 
> site) in order to see whether there is some interest. And at least you 
> are interested (some others already provided as well) :-)
>
> Brett Heroux wrote:
>> I have a couple of observations:
>> 1) Grails is THE Groovy application and any successful Groovy library 
>> should be able to be packaged as a Grails plugin.
>
> I must confess that I do not know exactly what a library makes a 
> Grails plugin. For me it is important to minimize dependencies, so the 
> base library should be independent from Grails. Providing it as a 
> Grails plugin in addition as well seems interesting.
>
>> 2) Closures are nice, but the real power of Groovy is in its 
>> collections, which can be made to look like closures by typing .each
>> 3) So far, Groovy LDAP supports basic authentication, a pluggable 
>> authentication would be nice
>> 4) Groovy LDAP doesn't have a caching mechanism, these are easy to 
>> implement and would also make a nice addition
>>
>> Finally, I think the mission may be somewhat flawed, JNDI already 
>> does this and the reason there is interest in an alternative is 
>> because  people, at least, I, want to have an abstraction from LDAP. 
>> Writing JNDI or even Spring LDAP is tedious, error-prone and 
>> time-consuming. A library that doesn't at least attempt to abstract 
>> those three things away is not going to get my interest.
>
> The question is: What is the target group of the library? LDAP people 
> like us don't want to hide LDAP functionality with a library like 
> JNDI, which uses strange names (bind for adding entries, for instance) 
> for common functionality.
>
> For me it would be OK if the library is easy to use for the main 80% 
> of the use cases, and allows advanced functionality as well.
>
>> I am interested in your project, and I tried to be constructive. I do 
>> have some experience with Groovy and LDAP, the yagll (yet another 
>> Groovy-LDAP library) open source project on codehaus.org 
>> <http://codehaus.org> is mine and I have worked with Spring LDAP, 
>> gldapo, JNDI and absolutely love Apache Directory Studio.
>
> Currently, I do not have much time and Groovy LDAP was a one-man-show; 
> therefore the development of the library did not make progress in the 
> last months.
>
> But it would be great to work together, design a road map for the next 
> features and add them to the next release (which would be the first 
> official release anyway). Perhaps also an option for you to enter our 
> team ... Are you interested?

I would be very pleased if we can work on the Groovy API at the same 
time we are working in the new LDAP API. In fact, I even think that if 
correctly defined, we could have a common API for Java, Groovy and C#.


-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny
www.nextury.com



Mime
View raw message