httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brad Nicholes" <BNICHO...@novell.com>
Subject RE: ldap
Date Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:04:29 GMT
    Being Novell which is the leading provider of directory services, we
obviously have a great interest in LDAP.  What if I were able to get the
Novell LDAP developers to step up and support AUTH_LDAP?  Would that be
enough to get AUTH_LDAP put back into the mainstream?

Brad

Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com 

>>> rbb@covalent.net Monday, July 29, 2002 9:35:05 AM >>>
Mod_proxy wasn't added back to the server until the developers had
proven that there was a development community around it, and most of
the
bugs had been fixed.  The same must be true for ldap before it can be
added to the base distribution.

Also, as a counter-point to this.  Adding a module to the core
discourages other people from implementing the same basic
functionality.
While that is usually a good thing, there are a LOT of versions of
auth_ldap for 1.3, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.  I
know of at least 1 other auth_ldap for 2.0 (proprietary, by Covalent),
would any of those modules been created if auth_ldap was in the core.

Now, I am trying to stay out of this discussion, because I have an
obvious conflict of interests, but I did want to give people something
to think about.

Ryan



----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom
rbb@covalent.net           rbb@apache.org 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Nicholes [mailto:BNICHOLES@novell.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:21 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org; minfrin@sharp.fm 
> Subject: Re: ldap
> 
>    I see the same thing happening to LDAP.  For the most part it has
> been ignored.  If it is considered to be unstable at this point, why
not
> put it in /experimental with the other modules that are considered
to
be
> "not yet ready for prime-time" but still very useful?  In this way,
it
> will get the exposure that it needs, documentation can continue (BTW
> where did the docs go??) and when it is stable, it can be moved into
the
> mainstream.
> 
> Brad
> 
> Brad Nicholes
> Senior Software Engineer
> Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
> http://www.novell.com 
> 
> >>> minfrin@sharp.fm Monday, July 29, 2002 6:03:26 AM >>>
> john@sterls.com wrote:
> 
> > People didn't want it to be a part of the core more because of
module
> bloat.
> >  As Aaron says, there is no reason to add all these modules to the
> core
> > only to have to release them on the same schedule - I like it as a
> sub project.
> 
> When proxy was a subproject, it received no exposure, which was
> detrimental to the project as a whole. Bugs were only fixed when
proxy
> 
> went mainstream again. Subprojects mean more work for end-users, and
> avoiding end-user work is better than avoiding developer work.
> 
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> minfrin@sharp.fm 
> 	"There's a moon
> 					over Bourbon Street
> 						tonight..."



Mime
View raw message