Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Pick your preferred name
Done. I'll keep you posted. On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Karl Wright wrote: +1 to both. Karl On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Jack Krupansky jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com wrote: +1 to both - review of name and address the NTLM issue since ACF is getting closer to where an actual 0.1 release could be considered. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: Grant Ingersoll grant.ingers...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 1:35 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Pick your preferred name ACF passed the Incubator vote. My question to the community is do you want me to go to the Board and ask for advice on this since the Board ultimately approves any podling graduating? One Director weighed in on the vote saying the Board wouldn't care, but in my view it was not an official opinion. I was actually thinking about asking the board for two things: 1. View of the name 2. Whether they have guidance on our repeated request about NTLM and it's inclusion in any ACF release. I believe someone was slated to engage with us a few months back, but I don't believe anyone has reached out to us yet. Thoughts? -Grant On Sep 7, 2010, at 4:54 AM, Karl Wright wrote: Voting is now closed. Final tally (which only counts Robert's first choice and not all three): Apache Connectors Framework 15 Apache Manifold 11 Apache Yukon 9 Apache Macon 4 Apache ManifoldCF 3 Apache Omni 1 Apache Acromantula 1 Apache Lukon 1 Karl -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 -- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com/ Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Pick your preferred name
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-80 has been created to track the NTLM issue. Sam Ruby is working w/ the ASF attorneys on this. I don't know how long it will take. In a separate thread, we should discuss workarounds/fallback plans so that we are prepared either way. -Grant On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Karl Wright wrote: +1 to both. Karl On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Jack Krupansky jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com wrote: +1 to both - review of name and address the NTLM issue since ACF is getting closer to where an actual 0.1 release could be considered. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: Grant Ingersoll grant.ingers...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 1:35 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Pick your preferred name ACF passed the Incubator vote. My question to the community is do you want me to go to the Board and ask for advice on this since the Board ultimately approves any podling graduating? One Director weighed in on the vote saying the Board wouldn't care, but in my view it was not an official opinion. I was actually thinking about asking the board for two things: 1. View of the name 2. Whether they have guidance on our repeated request about NTLM and it's inclusion in any ACF release. I believe someone was slated to engage with us a few months back, but I don't believe anyone has reached out to us yet. Thoughts? -Grant On Sep 7, 2010, at 4:54 AM, Karl Wright wrote: Voting is now closed. Final tally (which only counts Robert's first choice and not all three): Apache Connectors Framework 15 Apache Manifold 11 Apache Yukon 9 Apache Macon 4 Apache ManifoldCF 3 Apache Omni 1 Apache Acromantula 1 Apache Lukon 1 Karl -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
What to do if NTLM is not accepted by ASF
In a separate thread, we should discuss workarounds/fallback plans so that we are prepared either way. NTLM support of one form or another is critical for most of the Windows-based repositories. This includes SharePoint, Meridio, and LiveLink. For HttpClient 4.x, they went so far as to remove even 3.x's limited support for NTLM. What they did instead was to point you at jCIFS and tell you how to write an authentication provider using some of the jCIFS methods to do the proper signatures. So, our options are (appears to me): (1) Get the NTLM implementation accepted, and preferably integrated upstream into HttpClient 4.x. (2) Convert everything to HttpClient 4.0, and either provide some kind of reflection-based hook for it that will make use of jCIFS if it is present, but fall back to no NTLM support if not, or better yet, add an authentication provider registry to HttpClient 4.0 that would make everyone's life easier in the long run. Note that there's a real problem with testing here - I don't have access to (say) a SharePoint server on an NTLMv2-protected domain right now, so how are we to check whether this works? Karl
