directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kiran Ayyagari <kayyag...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Leveraging Kerby Kerberos library in ApacheDS
Date Tue, 04 Aug 2015 02:10:38 GMT
Hi Kai,

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Zheng, Kai <kai.zheng@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Kiran,
>
>
>
> Sorry for the late response. I got your point and agree we can have a
> standard configuration format like
>
np

> JSON or YAML in addition to krb5.conf format. Maybe we don’t have to get
> it done before the first cut of release? How about doing it in 1.0.0-rc2?
> If ok let me fire an issue to bookmark this proposal. Thanks.
>
> I think we don't need to support anything else, cause we are already
supporting the krb5.conf

so I think we are good without any additional config formats (except the
LDAP format which we can take
care of later)

wdyt?

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kai
>
>
>
> *From:* Kiran Ayyagari [mailto:kayyagari@apache.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 31, 2015 2:46 PM
>
> *To:* Apache Directory Developers List
> *Subject:* Re: Leveraging Kerby Kerberos library in ApacheDS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Zheng, Kai <kai.zheng@intel.com> wrote:
>
> >> once Kerby is matured enough then we can add a dependency on it in
> ApacheDS and integrate.
>
> Is there any good sign in your view for the maturity? It looks reasonable,
> but should we wait and do it then? I guess some pioneering work in ApacheDS
> side would be tried first.
>
> my point was only w.r.t standardizing the configuration and stick to
> one/two formats
>
>
>
> >> The current code base tries to support way too many configuration
> formats and I would like to see it support only one format, well and
> complete.
>
> Well, kerby-config may attempt to support various formats, but in the
> main/Kerberos part, only MIT format is used right now. I agree we may
> support a ‘standard’ format if krb5.conf isn’t any good standard. In your
> view, what’s left to be complete? Writing or generating of configuration
> file in a format? Or whatever?
>
> I am totally fine with using krb5.conf and perhaps we can just stick to
> it, ignoring all other formats.
>
> I have only checked various implementations present in the code, not
> checked if they are in use
>
> so proposed to support an additional format.
>
>
>
> If we are already supporting krb5.conf then let us stick to it, and our
> effort can be diverted to other parts
>
>
>
> >> And then we can add a GUI config editor in Studio easily.
>
> Did you mean we need to generate a config file after some editing using
> the GUI tool? Kerby-config module allows to load configuration items from a
> Java Map/Properties, which may work here. I mean, the edited values can be
> stored in any form and then all the values can be loaded in a map for
> config to use.
>
>
> no, no, just mentioning that if we have one format writing a config editor
> becomes easier
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kai
>
>
>
> *From:* Kiran Ayyagari [mailto:kayyagari@apache.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 31, 2015 12:15 PM
> *To:* Apache Directory Developers List
> *Subject:* Re: Leveraging Kerby Kerberos library in ApacheDS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Zheng, Kai <kai.zheng@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I’m thinking about what would be next steps after Kerby 1.0.0 out. We
> originally discussed when Kerby is ready, we’ll replace existing Kerberos
> related codes to simplify the code base in ApacheDS. This will include both
> the server and the studio. I thought this is important for the parent
> project, IMHO, the code base with so many external dependencies is rather
> complicated to move on (checking styles etc.), and also not easy to use.
> For example, so many modules, just hard to figure out the combination when
> only need a part of it in my app.
>
>
>
> once Kerby is matured enough then we can add a dependency on it in
> ApacheDS and integrate.
>
>
>
> The concern that I have at the moment is Kerby's configuration, The
> current code base tries to support
>  way too many configuration formats and I would like to see it support
> only one format, well and complete.
>
> I am fine if we plan to support MIT krb5.conf format in _addition_ to our
> standard format
>
> but having more than these two formats slows us down.
>
>
>
> My personal preference would be to support JSON or YAML besides the
> krb5.conf. And then we can add
>  a GUI config editor in Studio easily.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kai
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kiran Ayyagari
> http://keydap.com
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kiran Ayyagari
> http://keydap.com
>



-- 
Kiran Ayyagari
http://keydap.com

Mime
View raw message