Hi Keheliya, This looks pretty good.
The diagram helps for understanding. What's the next step? I've read here that students will be able to apply from March 29 to April 9. http://socghop.appspot.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2010/faqs#student_apply Regards, Pierre-Arnaud On 24 mars 2010, at 08:03, Keheliya Gallaba wrote: > Dear Directory Developers, > > Thanks for all the feedback in the ML and IRC regarding my initial > draft for the LDAP diagnostic tool plugin to Apache Directory Studio > in GSoC 2010. I have come up with a newer version of the document with > the changes you have mentioned. Specifically, I have elaborated about > the use cases of it as a debugging tool, implementation details about > the architecture (with a diagram) etc. and changed the references to > newer versions of RFCs > > New link to the 'LDAP diagnostic tool plugin to Apache Directory > Studio' project proposal draft: > http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AchQu7BiiRdcZHNqbmJ0NV82NnpmNHh0ZGd2&hl=en_GB > > Your comments and feedback are very much appreciated as always. > > On 9 March 2010 10:20, Keheliya Gallaba <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> First of all thanx Stefan and Stefan ;-) for the quick yet informative >> feedback. And thanks Lecharny and Marcelot for the support and ideas >> for coming up with the proposal. >> >> On 8 March 2010 19:40, Stefan Zoerner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Although you mention "debug purposes" in your Synopsis, I would emphasize >>> this aspect a little bit more. It makes clear why there is real value for >>> our users. >> >> In my next revision of the document, as Zoerner mentioned I will >> elaborate more on the benefits of the Proxy GUI and specially about >> the use cases of it as a debugging tool. >> >> On 8 March 2010 22:15, Stefan Seelmann <[email protected]> wrote: >>> - The latest LDAP RFC are 4510-4519. If you want to study RFCs please >>> check out those. >>> >>> - As a design goal I think it would be nice to separate the proxy core >>> (the part doing the network communication and stores logs) from the GUI >>> part. This would make it possible to reuse the proxy core for a proxy >>> service. I don't think that you need to implement a separate service and >>> a communication protocol to the GUI. Additional such separation makes it >>> easier to write unit test. >>> >> >> And as Seelmann said, I will refer the new RFCs. >> +1 for the Proxy Core and GUI separation idea. It will be a good >> architecture and will make things easy for expansion and testing. I >> will revise the document illustrating the proposed architecture. >> >> Eagerly looking forward for more feedback... >> >> Best Regards >> -- >> Keheliya Gallaba >> http://galpotha.wordpress.com >> http://twitter.com/keheliya >> > > > Best Regards > -- > Keheliya Gallaba > http://galpotha.wordpress.com > http://twitter.com/keheliya
