dunno alex. but this strikes me as a bit strange for you to be
criticizing Enrique for thinking about adding new features whereas
for the last month you were too busy adding new features to review a
pretty simple code cleanup patch.
I'm also a bit unclear exactly what you mean by "I'm just going to
say no for now". To me this looks like a proactive veto of code that
hasn't even been written yet, without a technical justification. I
don't quite see how that fits into normal apache procedures. What am
I missing?
I thought one of the ways to make an open source project flourish was
to encourage people to contribute what they want and can contribute.
I think that telling people their work is not welcome is likely to
keep the contributor base, well, extremely manageable.
Personally I think this is looks like a nice bit, not that i
understand any deep details about it, and if my voice meant anything
i'd encourage Enrique to work on it. If he wants to write more docs
than he already has on some other bits he's contributed that would be
fine with me too, but I usually find that docs are wrong by the time
they are actually written and available. I generally find clear code
is a better bet.
BTW, where are the developer and user guides for the dynamic schem
stuff? I'm probably just not looking in the right place but I
haven't been able to find the docs on how to use this feature.
And finally, what are
http://directory.apache.org/apacheds/1.5/dns-protocol-provider.html
http://directory.apache.org/apacheds/1.5/dns-protocol-configuration.html
which I found in the advanced user guide table of contents?
I hope I'm not burning too many bridges with this email but I can't
say I have any desire to work on a project that features responses
like this to proposals for cool new stuff.
thanks
david jencks
On Sep 23, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
IMO if you have some time you might want to start work on some
developer documentation
on DNS as well as a user's guide so we can attract more committers
while answering user
questions around DNS.
Just this week someone asked about this on the users list and all
they heard were crickets.
Emmanuel had to sit there and tell the guy that we cannot support
him and its an embarrassment
for us. He had to apologize for your actions. That's not cool.
Although I want to see you make strides on adding new features to
Kerberos I think it's a bit irresponsible
for you to get back into new features without documenting others
that you added in the past.
You just can't do that while you leave the DNS situation in a poor
state. Do you understand
the point I'm trying to make here? Do you see some merit in what I
am saying from a community
perspective? I'm trying to get you to understand where we're coming
from and not think this is
at all any means to lessen your value. We really like the
technical things you do but a community
is not just about the code.
It's antithetical to OS culture to just drop code or features into
some project and leave. You have
to take care of the users, the developers that come after you so
the project is alive rather than being
an inanimate piece of code. By suggesting this new feature
addition before taking care of your
inherent responsibilities to the community clearly shows that
you're not thinking about these aspects.
This is why I'm going to just say no for now.
Secondly with respect to technical matters how does this impact
what we have in Triplesec
with HOTP? Is this another SAM type for the kerberos server which
uses the class loading
scheme we already have in place for verifiers?
Alex
On 9/22/07, Enrique Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, Directory developers,
I have a window with no major deadlines for the next few weeks, so I
looked into adding 1 new Kerberos feature for the next release. After
doing some "due diligence," ie reading the relevant specs and
reviewing what support I need from the JDK and various libraries, I am
highly confident I can add PKINIT support for 1.5.2.
PKINIT is a pre-authentication type for Kerberos (detailed in RFC
4556). For those not familiar, PKINIT can be quickly summarized as
"smartcard authentication for Kerberos, replacing the
username/password." PKINIT can also work with a local keypair, so
there isn't a requirement for hardware like an actual smartcard,
though that is the intended deployment scenario.
Since this is only a new pre-authentication verifier, I would rather
not branch and instead develop this, at first, in my sandbox. I have
time starting this weekend, so I'd like to start to get code
committed, to back the code up.
Enrique
