directory-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Remington <>
Subject Re: Suggestions for ApacheDS 1.5.x and Mac OS X installer
Date Thu, 29 May 2008 18:47:57 GMT
Thanks for the response and  I do understand it's a volunteer effort and 
am very grateful for this!  I have a few other comments in reply below.

Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Hi Rich,
> thanks for this mil. I will not reply on the Mac installer pbs you are 
> mentionning, others will do. I just want to give you some insingths 
> abouut some of your questions.
> 1) Server.xml
>>    * The server.xml syntax changed between 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.  This seems
>>      like a deviation from the version numbering policies at Apache,
>>      but I could be wrong.  
> There is nothing such as a Apache policy for versioning, for the 
> record. We have had long discussions two years ago about ApacheDS 
> versioning policy, and came with these policies :
> - we have a X.Y.Z number scheme
> - X.0.Z means stable version. ie, versions where functionalities are 
> not added, where data stored into the backend are binary compatible, 
> and where the configuration files are compatible.
> - X.5.Z are unstable versions, ie version which are subject to 
> changes, including configuration files.
> - 0.Z are for bug fixes
> - 5.Z are for functional additions, and of course bug fixes.
> - when X.5.Z is ready, the next version is (X+1).0.0
> So in our case, the 5 means : 'in between X and X+1 version'. Half 
> backed server :). I understand that the site does not clearly state 
> that...
Now that you mention it, I may have read this somewhere in my search 
through various docs, but it is not something that is really obvious for 
the new user downloading from the main link off the home page.  If you 
(or some other person) could modify the 1.5.x download page to state 
this up front, I suspect you will not catch other folks by surprise like 
it did me.  I'm not afraid of trying out new versions, I just want to 
know before hand that I may be working with an unstable product.
>> FYI, I have since gone back to version 1.0.2 and have had far fewer 
>> issues.  I know these things will get resolved in future versions, 
>> but I am guessing that more than a few people are getting a "less 
>> than good" taste in their mouths after trying out the latest versions.  
> This is a risk we took. 1.0 is now two years old (barely), and 2.0 is 
> at least 3 months far from being out. You have to know that ADS is a 
> pretty big piece of code (around 400 000 slocs), and it takes a huge 
> amount of time to make it working, fast, compliant and powerfull. The 
> current 1.5 version is running 5 times faster than the 1.0, with far 
> less LDAP issues, and with a far better internal structure. 
> Documentation is also lacking for the very same reason : people are 
> reluctant to document a moving target...
>> Finally, I am not sure I would have the most prominent ApacheDS link 
>> (on the home page) pointing to version 1.5.x at this point.  That 
>> should be for those willing to tolerate code that is [not quite] 
>> ready for prime time IMHO.
> You may be right.
> Last, not least, remember that it's a volunteer based project, and we 
> are not that many working on it ! Any contribution is very welcome !
FYI, I meant to say "... not quite ready for prime time" in my original 
post.  Anyway, I wish I knew more about LDAP, so I could contribute to 
the code base.  Working with LDAP is just a tangent to my "real" job.  
The only way I know how to help is to point out things that may trip up 
others in my situation.
> Thanks !
You're very welcome and, again, thanks for your efforts and taking the 
time to respond!

View raw message