On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Arnaud Lesueur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott, > > I share your point of view for those modules migration. And I will be glad > to migrate the SPNEGO module as long as you do not push me dead line :-)
We've got plenty of time... API's haven't been finalized yet either ;-) > > Few remarks : > - Trusted support is really important for intregration of CAS with others > products and should be kept I agree. I'll be making sure that gets transferred over. > - Handlers should be able to deal with password expiration natively if it is > possible (specially the LDAP handler) Yes, I agree. I also want a way for us to send back information like "you'll password will expire in 10 days." > - Radius Handler is really usefull for integration of CAS with OTP systems > and I would also like to see it in CAS 4. I have use it yet but I will try > to have a look at it for improvrements Feel free too...we don't use RADIUS as our authentication mechanism here... > - Clustering support is a bit tricky. I know that you had better results > with memcached. But, this suppose to deploy/maintain/monitor an extra > non-java components on cluster nodes Correct. However, I only know about two places that had good luck with the JBoss Cache :-) At a minimum we should upgrade to JBoss Cache 2.0 and take advantage of their more fine-grained controls. -Scott > > Regards, > > -Arnaud > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Scott Battaglia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> 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 > > > > -- > Arnaud Lesueur > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/lesueur > > _______________________________________________ > cas-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas-dev > > _______________________________________________ cas-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas-dev
