Hi Kai, On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Zheng, Kai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Kiran, > > > > Sorry for the late response. I got your point and agree we can have a > standard configuration format like > np > JSON or YAML in addition to krb5.conf format. Maybe we don’t have to get > it done before the first cut of release? How about doing it in 1.0.0-rc2? > If ok let me fire an issue to bookmark this proposal. Thanks. > > I think we don't need to support anything else, cause we are already supporting the krb5.conf so I think we are good without any additional config formats (except the LDAP format which we can take care of later) wdyt? > > > Regards, > > Kai > > > > *From:* Kiran Ayyagari [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, July 31, 2015 2:46 PM > > *To:* Apache Directory Developers List > *Subject:* Re: Leveraging Kerby Kerberos library in ApacheDS > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Zheng, Kai <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> once Kerby is matured enough then we can add a dependency on it in > ApacheDS and integrate. > > Is there any good sign in your view for the maturity? It looks reasonable, > but should we wait and do it then? I guess some pioneering work in ApacheDS > side would be tried first. > > my point was only w.r.t standardizing the configuration and stick to > one/two formats > > > > >> The current code base tries to support way too many configuration > formats and I would like to see it support only one format, well and > complete. > > Well, kerby-config may attempt to support various formats, but in the > main/Kerberos part, only MIT format is used right now. I agree we may > support a ‘standard’ format if krb5.conf isn’t any good standard. In your > view, what’s left to be complete? Writing or generating of configuration > file in a format? Or whatever? > > I am totally fine with using krb5.conf and perhaps we can just stick to > it, ignoring all other formats. > > I have only checked various implementations present in the code, not > checked if they are in use > > so proposed to support an additional format. > > > > If we are already supporting krb5.conf then let us stick to it, and our > effort can be diverted to other parts > > > > >> And then we can add a GUI config editor in Studio easily. > > Did you mean we need to generate a config file after some editing using > the GUI tool? Kerby-config module allows to load configuration items from a > Java Map/Properties, which may work here. I mean, the edited values can be > stored in any form and then all the values can be loaded in a map for > config to use. > > > no, no, just mentioning that if we have one format writing a config editor > becomes easier > > > > Regards, > > Kai > > > > *From:* Kiran Ayyagari [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, July 31, 2015 12:15 PM > *To:* Apache Directory Developers List > *Subject:* Re: Leveraging Kerby Kerberos library in ApacheDS > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Zheng, Kai <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I’m thinking about what would be next steps after Kerby 1.0.0 out. We > originally discussed when Kerby is ready, we’ll replace existing Kerberos > related codes to simplify the code base in ApacheDS. This will include both > the server and the studio. I thought this is important for the parent > project, IMHO, the code base with so many external dependencies is rather > complicated to move on (checking styles etc.), and also not easy to use. > For example, so many modules, just hard to figure out the combination when > only need a part of it in my app. > > > > once Kerby is matured enough then we can add a dependency on it in > ApacheDS and integrate. > > > > The concern that I have at the moment is Kerby's configuration, The > current code base tries to support > way too many configuration formats and I would like to see it support > only one format, well and complete. > > I am fine if we plan to support MIT krb5.conf format in _addition_ to our > standard format > > but having more than these two formats slows us down. > > > > My personal preference would be to support JSON or YAML besides the > krb5.conf. And then we can add > a GUI config editor in Studio easily. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Regards, > > Kai > > > > > -- > > Kiran Ayyagari > http://keydap.com > > > > > -- > > Kiran Ayyagari > http://keydap.com > -- Kiran Ayyagari http://keydap.com
