Re: Rethinking Mavibot...

Le 02/07/16 à 00:50, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > Hi Lucas, > > I understand what you meant and totally agree. That’s why in the past years I > would spend lots of spare time working on a pure Java Kerberos binding, > Apache Kerby. However, for the backend part, as it regards to users’ data, it >

Re: Rethinking Mavibot...

Le 02/07/16 à 00:38, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > This sounds nice. > > In my view, we should probably start with the most popular platform like > Linux and fallback to the current Java offering on other platforms that we > don't support yet due to all kinds of constraints like resources and the >

RE: Rethinking Mavibot...

goes that way. Regards, Kai From: Lucas Theisen [mailto:lucasthei...@pastdev.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:26 PM To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org> Subject: RE: Rethinking Mavibot... My 10 cents... a pure Java solution is much better for many reasons: 1)

RE: Rethinking Mavibot...

, 2016 5:03 AM To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org> Subject: Re: Rethinking Mavibot... As a matter of fact, things are moving in the LMDB landscape : https://github.com/lmdbjava/lmdbjava There is still some need of a Windows build for LMDB, but still, I think that

Re: Rethinking Mavibot...

As a matter of fact, things are moving in the LMDB landscape : https://github.com/lmdbjava/lmdbjava There is still some need of a Windows build for LMDB, but still, I think that would be great to have a partition that uses LMDB. Just for the sake of consitency.

RE: Rethinking Mavibot...

nney [mailto:smckin...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:10 PM > To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Rethinking Mavibot... > > > > On Jun 27, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> > wrote: >

RE: Rethinking Mavibot...

] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:10 PM To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org> Subject: Re: Rethinking Mavibot... > On Jun 27, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is what I would suggest : > > - LMDB is an o

Re: Rethinking Mavibot...

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > > Here is what I would suggest : > > - LMDB is an obvious candidate if we want to use something that exists, > and which is proven to work. > - There are a coupld of existing bindings for LMDB : >

Re: Rethinking Mavibot...

Le 27/06/16 à 13:02, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > I really think the community need to think about this seriously because it > regards how the parent project would evolve in the long term. Lacking a > strong and solid LDAP server backend, it would shade our many efforts in > other aspects.

Re: Rethinking Mavibot...

Le 27/06/16 à 13:05, Zheng, Kai a écrit : >>> Transaction has to be started explicitely from the LDAP layer... > Yeah, I agree. But that doesn't mean the LDAP layer has to implement the > transaction support itself. It just needs to aware, start and end the > transaction when performing

RE: Rethinking Mavibot...

much about the else. Regards, Kai -Original Message- From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecha...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 7:03 PM To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org> Subject: Re: Rethinking Mavibot... Le 27/06/16 à 12:49, Zheng, Kai a

RE: Rethinking Mavibot...

essage- From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecha...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 6:52 PM To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org> Subject: Re: Rethinking Mavibot... Le 27/06/16 à 12:33, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > Yes, I agree. Is it possible to be a lightweight

RE: Rethinking Mavibot...

27, 2016 6:49 PM To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org> Subject: RE: Rethinking Mavibot... Thanks so much for the full explanation, Emmanuel. Sorry for my asking again. >> Otherwise, we could use LMDB, with a JNI wrapper. That is an option. But I >>

Re: Rethinking Mavibot...

Le 27/06/16 à 12:49, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > Thanks so much for the full explanation, Emmanuel. Sorry for my asking again. > >>> Otherwise, we could use LMDB, with a JNI wrapper. That is an option. But I >>> have no idea what it would cost us in term of packaging. > The packaging isn't really so

Re: Rethinking Mavibot...

Le 27/06/16 à 12:33, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > Yes, I agree. Is it possible to be a lightweight wrapper on top of the > plugined DB enginene, for example, we wouldn't need to support the > transaction stuffs by ourselves? No. Transaction has to be started explicitely from the LDAP layer, which

RE: Rethinking Mavibot...

rs List <dev@directory.apache.org> Subject: Re: Rethinking Mavibot... Le 27/06/16 à 08:07, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > Thanks for the update. > > It looks like to me there is much work to do. Is there any alternative > option? I'm still thinking that if we could leverage any existing

Re: Rethinking Mavibot...

Le 27/06/16 à 12:15, Howard Chu a écrit : > Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: >> Le 27/06/16 à 08:07, Zheng, Kai a écrit : >>> Thanks for the update. >>> >>> It looks like to me there is much work to do. Is there any >>> alternative option? I'm still thinking that if we could leverage any >>> existing back

RE: Rethinking Mavibot...

- From: Howard Chu [mailto:h...@symas.com] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 6:15 PM To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org> Subject: Re: Rethinking Mavibot... Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > Le 27/06/16 à 08:07, Zheng, Kai a écrit : >> Thanks for the update. >

Re: Rethinking Mavibot...

Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: Le 27/06/16 à 08:07, Zheng, Kai a écrit : Thanks for the update. It looks like to me there is much work to do. Is there any alternative option? I'm still thinking that if we could leverage any existing back end implementation, so we could focus on the LDAP specific

Re: Rethinking Mavibot...

Le 27/06/16 à 08:07, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > Thanks for the update. > > It looks like to me there is much work to do. Is there any alternative > option? I'm still thinking that if we could leverage any existing back end > implementation, so we could focus on the LDAP specific logic for the master

RE: Rethinking Mavibot...

Thanks for the update. It looks like to me there is much work to do. Is there any alternative option? I'm still thinking that if we could leverage any existing back end implementation, so we could focus on the LDAP specific logic for the master server component...this is worth being considered