Hi Steve,
please do not consider my earlier reply as a hostile one, it wasn't
meant to offend you
at all.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Steve Moyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kiran,
>
> I certainly didn't want or expect you to be disappointed! It is however
> a bit disingenuous to say that *WE* forked eSCIMo and kept it private
> since you and I discussed the fact that your ideas for eSCIMo moved
> towards an untyped mapping system while we moved towards a fully-typed
> model of the SCIM resources based on a first-principles dissection of
> the SCIM specification.
>
> It was your suggestion that we fork the project (at the time I think
> there were three files checked into eSCIMo) and the major contribution
> to the project is that it's still (for the time being) using Wink. You
> also suggested the name "igloo" and didn't feel the Apache Directory
> server project would want to create another repository for it. Since we
> had a Gitolite system running (and hadn't created the PennState Github
> account yet, we added your public key to our Gitolite system on July
> 15th, 2013 and gave you read/write access to both the igloo source code
> and the kerberos-client source code (which is not nearly finished).
>
> I remember this, and also Igloo was intended to just chalk out some ideas
and collaborate before we get the svn repo at ASF.
But shortly after creation of Igloo we didn't communicate at all, at which
point
I assumed the cooperation was ended.
I have only considered Igloo as a private repo for both of us to
collaborate
before moving to eSCIMo's repo.
I still have this repo, but its been a very long time since I did a pull.
We've only had sporadic conversations on IRC and I personally could have
> done a lot more to keep this team up-to-date. Igloo is *NOT* back-end
> specific but our implementation, which is plugged into igloo as a
> provider is very specific to OpenLDAP and Fortress. It's also not
> completely SCIM compliant. I guess the biggest reason I haven't spent
> more time collaborating on igloo is that a) you didn't seem interested
> and I knew that eSCIMo was developing as part of a delivery to your
>
not really, there were people who were interested after I started
prototyping
but it wasn't intended as a delivery (for example Syncope project was
interested in using it)
> client and b) we had our own dead-lines for completing the implementation.
>
> and these deadlines, as you know, wouldn't be a barrier, cause you can
still continue work
with the timelines in mind.
Perhaps we might have ended up with two different branches, which might
have eventually be
merged after consensus.
My idea was to stick to Resource types on server side while letting clients
work with specific
types for ease of programming. And the current eSCIMo code perfectly
achieved this with a
JSON schema -> Java class compiler, which is similar to WSDL -> Java.
In the mean-time, I talked with Emmanuel at JavaOne 2013 and Shawn
> McKinney at JavaOne 2014. Emmanuel never sent me a public key for the
> repository but even today, you can check the igloo source out of our
> repository.
>
> no, please note that he was neck deep in Mavibot during that time
> In any case, please accept my humble apologies ... I don't want the
> chasm that appears to have grown between us to grow any wider! Can we
> at least build a bridge?
>
> sorry, I wasn't mean to seek apologies, just expressing a minor
inconvenience with
accepting a widely deviated code base, that is all.
In fact, we are not against considering this proposal, we are still
weighing the options.
> I won't be at all insulted if you reject the idea of adding igloo (or
> whatever it ends up being called) to the Apache Directory project. SCIM
> has a relatively large following and once the code we're offering is
> cleaned up, documented and fixed to match the final SCIM 2.0
> specification (we're currently bringing it up to draft 17's state), I'm
> sure the code will be appreciated by the SCIM community and could stay
> either on the PennState GitHub repository or be incorporated into the
> Internet2's middle-ware offerings. Since the individuals reading this
> e-mail have been hugely helpful in our meeting the university's goals,
> we thought it was only fair to offer it back here where it started.
>
> I personally appreciate the idea and effort
> This is also not a code dump - We expect to spend a significant amount
> of time bringing the code up to standards (our own and if necessary,
> your style guidelines) and we're actually going to fix the architectural
> mistakes made in the code before the world starts using it. I expect to
> remain a committer and perhaps the primary maintainer whereever the code
> ends up (even if we keep it private). Fortunately, we've been hiring
> some great JavaEE Software Engineers in the last few months and I'll get
> to go back to being the architect/programmer.
>
> that is encouraging, I would propose that we take the best from the mix of
eSCIMo and Igloo and merge it into eSCIMo(currently 2.0 compliant)
And eventually we can discuss the architectural changes and implement them
in the new code base.
> We'll also be releasing a pretty broad suite of tools along with the
> framework - this e-mail is long enough without listing out the modules
> we'll provide.
>
> +1
> In any case, I'm truly apologize for any hurt feeling this has caused.
>
sorry if my earlier reply sounded harsh, it wasn't intentional.
thank you
>
>
Steve
>
>
--
Kiran Ayyagari
http://keydap.com
