Le 23/04/15 14:54, Emmanuel Lécharny a écrit :
> Le 22/04/15 19:08, Emmanuel Lécharny a écrit :
>> Le 22/04/15 18:31, Stefan Seelmann a écrit :
>>> +1 to your suggestion.
>>>
>>> And please remove the AuthenticationInterceptorTest I added yesterday,
>>> probably it doesn't make too much sense.
>> W
Le 22/04/15 19:08, Emmanuel Lécharny a écrit :
> Le 22/04/15 18:31, Stefan Seelmann a écrit :
>> +1 to your suggestion.
>>
>> And please remove the AuthenticationInterceptorTest I added yesterday,
>> probably it doesn't make too much sense.
> Will do.
Done.
It's slightly more complex, as we may h
Le 22/04/15 18:31, Stefan Seelmann a écrit :
> +1 to your suggestion.
>
> And please remove the AuthenticationInterceptorTest I added yesterday,
> probably it doesn't make too much sense.
Will do.
Thanks !
+1 to your suggestion.
And please remove the AuthenticationInterceptorTest I added yesterday,
probably it doesn't make too much sense.
Kind Regards,
Stefan
On 04/22/2015 12:08 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yesterday, we were hit by a bus, and it was expected for a very long
> time. Th
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yesterday, we were hit by a bus, and it was expected for a very long
> time. The way we handle authenticators is far from ebing perfect.
>
>
Here is the current code :
>
> public void bind( BindOperationContext bindContext )
Hi,
yesterday, we were hit by a bus, and it was expected for a very long
time. The way we handle authenticators is far from ebing perfect.
Here is the current code :
public void bind( BindOperationContext bindContext ) throws
LdapException
{
...
for ( Authenticator au
