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
