directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Henne <>
Subject Re: [discussion] Lowering barrier for perspective committers
Date Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:35:55 GMT
Hi all,

Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Thanks Jörg.  You are one of those bright people on the periphery that 
> I would like coming closer to the core as a committer.  We need more 
> people especially on things like DHCP where we only have a single 
> committer at this point in time.
Most of these days, I don't feel bright at all, but thanks anyway - I 
can use some motivation. :-)
> The strategy also needs a fresh new update.  But to sum it up quickly 
> here we're trying to implement a directory server however we want it 
> to have plugins that allow it to do other protocols needed to replace 
> Active Directory with a free Apache solution.
> So ApacheDS is much more than LDAP as you have observed.  However we 
> need to make this perfectly clear on our website.
Yes, "we want to be able to replace MS-AD" is great as a goal or 
strategy, as it makes it very clear what has to be done to get there. 
However, besides the MSAD-replacement, I think that the possibility to 
embed a directory with an application server is another important goal.

> Even some code has virtually no internal documentation.  A lurker just 
> pointed this out to me a while back regarding the Kerberos code.  Any 
> kind of help even with documentation would be appreciated.  BTW 
> committers need not just be code committers IMO.
We'll see, what I can do about that on the Wiki. Maybe the "usage 
scenarios" thing would be a good start...
>> A few days ago I posted a question (without getting an answer) about 
>> storing the partition configuration on the system partition. 
> I'm really sorry about this.  I've been slipping a lot lately with my 
> responsiveness to this list.  This is why building up the community 
> with some cross instruction on the core internals of the server is so 
> important.
No problem. This wasn't meant as a complaint, but rather a hint that I'd 
still like to learm something about the issue.
> Funny I did this a while back intending to put almost all the 
> configuration into the system partition minus some smart defaults. 
> However some of the OSGi work will replicate some of this so I did not 
> prioritize this high enough to complete it.
Good to hear that. I saw a mention of the system partition in the 
AD/OSGi presentation and therefore already hoped for OSGi to pick up the 
idea again.
> Right I follow you here.  Well let's see where this discussion goes 
> and if it leads to the lowering of the barrier to entry for new 
> committers.  I'd like to see you get involved in making sure the SAR 
> is working properly (we had some issues here) and that the DHCP server 
> is being developed actively.
Ok, thanks, so I'll try to fuel the respective discussions.

Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> I think that it should be very clear : ADS want to be a LDAP server, 
> LdapV3 compliant, written in Java. This is it. Ok, there are other 
> targets, too, like being a good place to experiment X500 extensions, 
> etc, but first we must get this 1.0 release out ! We need to be rock 
> solid. We need to be simple to use.
Well, kerberos, NTP, DHCP et. al. go way beyond LDAP. But that's ok, 
since that is coherent with the long-term goal to be able to replace 
MS-AD. But besides that I strongly sympathize with the "rock solid" and 
"simple to use" goals, since we (my team) intend to use ADS in 
production environments in the not-so-distant future.

Joerg Henne

View raw message