directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot>
Subject Re: Draft Proposal for 'LDAP proxy GUI' Project Idea
Date Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:14:42 GMT
Hi Keheliya,

This looks pretty good.

The diagram helps for understanding.

What's the next step?
I've read here that students will be able to apply from March 29 to April 9.


On 24 mars 2010, at 08:03, Keheliya Gallaba wrote:

> Dear Directory Developers,
> Thanks for all the feedback in the ML and IRC regarding my initial
> draft for the LDAP diagnostic tool plugin to Apache Directory Studio
> in GSoC 2010. I have come up with a newer version of the document with
> the changes you have mentioned. Specifically, I have elaborated about
> the use cases of it as a debugging tool, implementation details about
> the architecture (with a diagram) etc. and changed the references to
> newer versions of RFCs
> New link to the 'LDAP diagnostic tool plugin to Apache Directory
> Studio' project proposal draft:
> Your comments and feedback are very much appreciated as always.
> On 9 March 2010 10:20, Keheliya Gallaba <> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>> First of all thanx Stefan and Stefan ;-) for the quick yet informative
>> feedback. And thanks Lecharny and Marcelot for the support and ideas
>> for coming up with the proposal.
>> On 8 March 2010 19:40, Stefan Zoerner <> wrote:
>>> Although you mention "debug purposes" in your Synopsis, I would emphasize
>>> this aspect a little bit more. It makes clear why there is real value for
>>> our users.
>> In my next revision of the document, as Zoerner mentioned I will
>> elaborate more on the benefits of the Proxy GUI and specially about
>> the use cases of it as a debugging tool.
>> On 8 March 2010 22:15, Stefan Seelmann <> wrote:
>>> - The latest LDAP RFC are 4510-4519. If you want to study RFCs please
>>> check out those.
>>> - As a design goal I think it would be nice to separate the proxy core
>>> (the part doing the network communication and stores logs) from the GUI
>>> part. This would make it possible to reuse the proxy core for a proxy
>>> service. I don't think that you need to implement a separate service and
>>> a communication protocol to the GUI. Additional such separation makes it
>>> easier to write unit test.
>> And as Seelmann said, I will refer the new RFCs.
>> +1 for the Proxy Core and GUI separation idea. It will be a good
>> architecture and will make things easy for expansion and testing. I
>> will revise the document illustrating the proposed architecture.
>> Eagerly looking forward for more feedback...
>> Best Regards
>> --
>> Keheliya Gallaba
> Best Regards
> -- 
> Keheliya Gallaba

View raw message