I should also add that just because Rutgers is interested in migrating certain modules, that does not preclude anyone else from expressing interest in maturing/evolving those modules also (or in place of Rutgers). I know there are some people that have great ideas on how to improve the LDAP handlers.
-Scott -Scott Battaglia PGP Public Key Id: 0x383733AA LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottbattaglia On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Scott Battaglia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All, > > As part of the CAS4 roadmap/development, I'm looking at the currently > available modules/add-ons for CAS3 and evaluating which should be > migrated to CAS4. > > We currently have the following modules (not including core and webapp): > * Compatibility > * BerkeleyDb Support > * JBoss Cache Support > * Memcached Support > * RESTful API via Restlet > * Generic Handlers > * JDBC Handlers > * LDAP Handlers > * Legacy Handlers > * OpenId 1.1 Basic Support > * RADIUS Support > * SPNEGO/NTLM Support > * Trusted Support > * X.509 Support > > Currently Arnaud handles the SPNEGO/NTLM support and I'd be extremely > happy if he migrated that to CAS4. Similarly, Velpi currently manages > X.509 and I'd like to see that migrated. Rutgers specifically has an > interest in ensuring that Memcached support, RESTful API, and LDAP are > migrated. In addition, I would be willing to ensure that the > "Trusted" support would be migrated as its a key integration point. > (in addition, not listed here, but included as part of core would be > the JDBC Ticket Registry) > > That leaves the following modules: > * Compatibility > * BerkeleyDb Support > * JBoss Cache Support > * Generic Handlers > * Legacy Handlers > * JDBC Handlers > * OpenId 1.1 Support > * RADIUS Support > > Intuitively, it would seem the "Legacy" support for the CAS2 Password > Handlers has minimal usefulness at this point (CAS3 has been out for > over 3 years). Similarly, the generic handlers are essentially > enhanced test handlers. Unless someone had a strong interest in > supporting them, my inclination would be not to migrate them. > > The RADIUS and JDBC handlers seem like they would be useful to > continue supporting. Is anyone interested in maintaining them (i.e. > taking ownership of them)? They'd most likely be migrated either way, > but merely as is instead of with improvements that may be > necessary/useful. > > With the understanding that JBoss Cache underperforms compared to the > Memcached client, is it worth transferring JBossCache over? > Similarly, with the JpaTicketRegistry, is it worth having BerkeleyDb > also? (it may since BerkeleyDb is long term storage on disk). > Clearly, if anyone steps up, even if I don't find them useful, we'd be > willing to migrate. > > Thoughts? Comments? > -Scott > > -Scott Battaglia > PGP Public Key Id: 0x383733AA > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottbattaglia > _______________________________________________ cas-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas-dev
