directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keheliya Gallaba <keheliya.gall...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Draft Proposal for 'LDAP proxy GUI' Project Idea
Date Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:03:45 GMT
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 I have come up with a newer version of the document with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:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AchQu7BiiRdcZHNqbmJ0NV82NnpmNHh0ZGd2&hl=en_GB

Your comments and feedback are very much appreciated as always.

On 9 March 2010 10:20, Keheliya Gallaba <keheliya.gallaba@gmail.com> 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 <stefan@labeo.de> 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 <seelmann@apache.org> 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
> http://galpotha.wordpress.com
> http://twitter.com/keheliya
>


Best Regards
-- 
Keheliya Gallaba
http://galpotha.wordpress.com
http://twitter.com/keheliya

Mime
View raw message