directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Moyer <>
Subject Re: Apache Directory and SCIM
Date Wed, 22 Apr 2015 02:33:03 GMT

Given Emmanuel's disappointment conveyed in the original thread (on the
Fortress mailing list), please consider the proposal withdrawn.  We'll
make sure that any of the original eSCIMo code (should any remain in the
project) retains the Apache license and a link to this project along
with the original copyright, etc.

Politically the climate towards OSS has changed here so I'm sure we'll
eventually get to share some of the non-university specific software
we're creating.  Once again, please accept my sincere apologies.


On 04/21/2015 09:55 PM, Steve Moyer wrote:
> Kiran,
> I certainly didn't want or expect you to be disappointed!  It is however
> a bit disingenuous to say that *WE* forked eSCIMo and kept it private
> since you and I discussed the fact that your ideas for eSCIMo moved
> towards an untyped mapping system while we moved towards a fully-typed
> model of the SCIM resources based on a first-principles dissection of
> the SCIM specification.
> It was your suggestion that we fork the project (at the time I think
> there were three files checked into eSCIMo) and the major contribution
> to the project is that it's still (for the time being) using Wink.  You
> also suggested the name "igloo" and didn't feel the Apache Directory
> server project would want to create another repository for it.  Since we
> had a Gitolite system running (and hadn't created the PennState Github
> account yet, we added your public key to our Gitolite system on July
> 15th, 2013 and gave you read/write access to both the igloo source code
> and the kerberos-client source code (which is not nearly finished).
> We've only had sporadic conversations on IRC and I personally could have
> done a lot more to keep this team up-to-date.  Igloo is *NOT* back-end
> specific but our implementation, which is plugged into igloo as a
> provider is very specific to OpenLDAP and Fortress.  It's also not
> completely SCIM compliant.  I guess the biggest reason I haven't spent
> more time collaborating on igloo is that a) you didn't seem interested
> and I knew that eSCIMo was developing as part of a delivery to your
> client and b) we had our own dead-lines for completing the implementation.
> In the mean-time, I talked with Emmanuel at JavaOne 2013 and Shawn
> McKinney at JavaOne 2014.  Emmanuel never sent me a public key for the
> repository but even today, you can check the igloo source out of our
> repository.
> In any case, please accept my humble apologies ... I don't want the
> chasm that appears to have grown between us to grow any wider!  Can we
> at least build a bridge?
> I won't be at all insulted if you reject the idea of adding igloo (or
> whatever it ends up being called) to the Apache Directory project.  SCIM
> has a relatively large following and once the code we're offering is
> cleaned up, documented and fixed to match the final SCIM 2.0
> specification (we're currently bringing it up to draft 17's state), I'm
> sure the code will be appreciated by the SCIM community and could stay
> either on the PennState GitHub repository or be incorporated into the
> Internet2's middle-ware offerings.  Since the individuals reading this
> e-mail have been hugely helpful in our meeting the university's goals,
> we thought it was only fair to offer it back here where it started.
> This is also not a code dump - We expect to spend a significant amount
> of time bringing the code up to standards (our own and if necessary,
> your style guidelines) and we're actually going to fix the architectural
> mistakes made in the code before the world starts using it.  I expect to
> remain a committer and perhaps the primary maintainer whereever the code
> ends up (even if we keep it private).  Fortunately, we've been hiring
> some great JavaEE Software Engineers in the last few months and I'll get
> to go back to being the architect/programmer.
> We'll also be releasing a pretty broad suite of tools along with the
> framework - this e-mail is long enough without listing out the modules
> we'll provide.
> In any case, I'm truly apologize for any hurt feeling this has caused.
> Steve

"One longs, in reading your code, to walk on all fours" - Voltaire

View raw message