On 02.03.2008, at 21:12, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 09:16 +0100, Roland Weber wrote:
...
Absolutely. We would love to see a better support for NTLMv2 in
HttpClient.
Yes, we would love to see better support for NTLMv2 in HttpClient.
But what we would not want to see is somebody dropping a huge block
of code on us without giving further support. There will be user
questions on how things work or why they don't, and there will be
bugs that need fixing.
Roland
Not that we are able to properly maintain the existing NTLM code
either.
A better and cleaner NTLM implementation would be still be a big step
forward.
Yes, I agree with Oleg.
...
If the idea is to create a self-sustaining subproject for NTLM, I'm
all for it. But that means Incubator, not a code donation to us.
The purpose of incubation is to form a community around a code
base. The
scope of NTLM is too narrow to expect a self-sustaining community to
form around it. So what is the point of incubating that piece code in
the first place?
Right, I don't think NTLM support would justify a separate self-
sustaining community/project. Though we'd need to go through
Incubator anyway, just for the short-track intended for code
donations (just IP clearance, no community building).
But first let's see which answer we get in regard to the legal side;
we can then still decide what to do and where to go etc.
Cheers,
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
