On Aug 28, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > On 8/28/11 6:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> On Aug 27, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> >> I took a bit of time to start fleshing out an LDAP server and now know why >> we've been back and forth so often. You are using an FSM to parse messages >> and I am using FSMs to implement network protocols. > We are using a FSM to decode the LDAP messages, but this is an orthogonal > concern here.
Are you restating what I have just said? I fear I may be missing some point. > The problem we had with MINA is that we would have prefered to have two > decoder filters : one for the TLVs and another one for the LDAP messages. It > was not possible when we first created this decoder. In ASN.1 this may not be possible given the different encoding rules. Some of which force the "merging" of TLV and message parsing, i.e. some rules allow for the eliding of tags. Not sure if that is relevant to LDAP which may force the use of BER. > Also we have to use a demux at the end, and it's a PITA. Would we be able to > use a FSM to implment the LDAP protocol as a whole, we would be more than > happy. This is an interesting statement. Can you provide more detail? >> Two totally different things. I think we should think about this for a bit >> but I will quickly state that I think the way to handle this is to have >> something not unlike an SSL engine inside a filter; > SSL as a filter was a big mistake, IMHO. It may have no industry use but I think can serve as a nice POC for using a parsing engine inside an FSM, a pattern that I think may be applicable to LDAP messages. Regards, Alan
