Yeah Chris I agree with you totally but wanted to point out the OSGi option.
Alex On 5/16/07, Chris Custine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OSGi has an http service that we could use, and I think there are also a lot of new things coming that will make this even better down the road. I want to do OSGi as much as anyone, but I really think waiting is the right thing to do. Embedding Jetty is a piece of cake anyway, and I like your ideas to make the dependency optional. Chris On 5/16/07, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For some time now a few people have been discussing embedding an HTTP > service into ApacheDS for > a number of reasons: > > (1) to expose a DSML service > (2) host a web based configuration and management interface > (3) for first start configuration > (4) for other self service interfaces useful for directory users > > Just this morning I responded to an email from Peter Neubauer regarding > #4 to have a simple > self service application so users can manage various aspects of their > account. Such an application > would be trivial to implement if ApacheDS came with an optional HTTP > service which could be > enabled via it's configuration. > > After this email Emmanuel and I had a brief conversation about this. We > discussed how > easy it would be to integrate Jetty with ApacheDS since this was already > done for Triplesec. > Furthermore we discussed how just having the service present would allow > other parties to > extend ApacheDS functionality for custom use in their environments. > > I have several things on my plate at the moment but I think I should try > to grok this in the > next day or two just to the open the door to these other possibilities. > > Adding this new service to ApacheDS will impose some additional > dependencies since the > service will be optionally started by the server side JNDI provider > using the configuration. > Namely there will be a dependency on Jetty even if this service is not > turned on. There are > several ways to avoid this dependency. > > (1) Leverage OSGi to just provide the service in a decoupled fashion > (2) Add a "plugin" mechanism into the server-jndi module to load > protocol > providers dynamically at runtime > > Both approaches have pros and cons. The first will take time until we > get to OSGi. The > second requires additional work which would be redundant once an OSGi > container is used. > For these reasons I think it might be best if we just add this > dependency for now and refactor > later depending on what happens in the future. > > Alex > > >
