directory-fortress mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yudhi Karunia Surtan <yudh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Supporting LDAP HA client
Date Thu, 19 Apr 2018 17:22:00 GMT
Well, this is actually only a draft.
With this, I hope i can drag more idea from you guys.
Please share if you guys have any input.
I will try to modified "LdapConnectionProvider" tomorrow and use the class
that I made and see how it works.
I will update you guys about the experiment result at end of tomorrow.


Yudhi Karunia Surtan

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 21:20 Shawn McKinney <smckinney@apache.org> wrote:

> I just now glanced at the code Yudhi, will need to test it, but first
> glance looks pretty good.  Your approach of how to integrate the change is
> good.
>
> Shawn
>
> > On Apr 19, 2018, at 7:45 AM, Yudhi Karunia Surtan <yudhiks@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > After trying to understand better about commons-pool,
> > apache-directory-ldap-api and fortress.
> > I've come with a draft solution at branch "trivial/support-ha-client"
> >
> > I introduce 2 class which
> >
> >
> src/main/java/org/apache/directory/fortress/core/ldap/HAConnectionStrategy.java
> >
> src/main/java/org/apache/directory/fortress/core/ldap/LdapHAConnectionPool.java
> >
> > with this i try to minimize the existing changes at
> LdapConnectionProvider
> > class.
> >
> > the idea is by changing :
> > adminPool = new LdapConnectionPool( poolFactory );
> >
> > into :
> >
> > adminPool = new  LdapHAConnectionPool( poolFactory );
> >
> > at  LdapConnectionProvider class.
> >
> > What do you guys think about the changes i made at those branch?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yudhi Karunia Surtan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Yudhi Karunia Surtan <
> yudhiks@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ok shawn..
> >> I think it is possible to use keyedpool too, because it able act as
> >> arbiter. Let me finish this thing and update u once after it finished.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 22:18 Shawn McKinney <smckinney@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 16, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Yudhi Karunia Surtan <yudhiks@apache.org
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> My idea is a bit different with ldaptive implementation which they
> >>> mostly
> >>>> do the check before giving the connection. For fortress or ldap-api
i
> >>>> propose that the the client need to understand which node is healthy
> and
> >>>> give only the health one or thrown exception if all bad.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Apr 16, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Yudhi Karunia Surtan <yudhiks@apache.org
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I still don't know how big the changes will be but i think better if
I
> >>> try
> >>>> to put it on the code first and later all of you can give a feedback
> >>> about
> >>>> it. It might changes the current LdapConnectionProvider class.
> >>>
> >>> That sounds like a good plan to me.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Apr 16, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Yudhi Karunia Surtan <yudhiks@apache.org
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you have an idea how should ldap health check should be?
> >>>> Is that necessary to use bind command or something like telnet should
> >>> work?
> >>>
> >>> I’d think the health check’s purpose is to make sure that server is
> >>> responding in as lightweight a way as possible.  Bind is too heavy.
> >>> Telnet’s a possibility, but this is something we’ll vet with on the
> dev’prs
> >>> list.  For your experiment, anything will work knowing it may change
> later.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Shawn
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message