Hi Lucas, I understand what you meant and totally agree. That’s why in the past years I would spend lots of spare time working on a pure Java Kerberos binding, Apache Kerby. However, for the backend part, as it regards to users’ data, it must be strong so better to delegate to 3rd party offerings. You could think about this, developing another backend like Mavibot, would be how hard as it is being, while working on our core specific things such as LDAP and Kerberos, even given enough resources, right. It’s good to have the current Java offering, and we can leverage it to do the unit testing, and fallback to some platforms, but basing on the fact that we have/support a strong backend for the most typical platform.
Yes, the backend support should be pluggable and configurable so potentially the server can support whatever backend if the user would. Currently Apache Kerby goes that way. Regards, Kai From: Lucas Theisen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:26 PM To: Apache Directory Developers List <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Rethinking Mavibot... My 10 cents... a pure Java solution is much better for many reasons: 1) easier to use, don't have to think about a different version per OS 2) easier to build (obviously) 3) easier to test, don't have to worry about inconsistency introduced by different builds of the native lib 4) ... That said, being able to plug in a different backend via configuration is always valuable, and already supported, so I certainly wouldn't complain if somebody wrote an adapter for the native storage engine. Lucas On Jun 28, 2016 8:57 AM, "Zheng, Kai" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Yeah. It sounds like a great choice to consider https://github.com/deephacks/lmdbjni. It's still in updating. Would we proceed on this? Anyway, will play around it this week and see if any concerns. Regards, Kai -----Original Message----- From: Shawn McKinney [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:10 PM To: Apache Directory Developers List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Rethinking Mavibot... > On Jun 27, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Here is what I would suggest : > > - LMDB is an obvious candidate if we want to use something that > exists, and which is proven to work. > - There are a coupld of existing bindings for LMDB : > https://github.com/deephacks/lmdbjni, > https://github.com/chirino/lmdbjni > (which is 3 years old) > - We need to ensure that we have a build for Linux, Windows an MacOSX. > A project like https://github.com/deephacks/lmdb might help > > We also need someone wanting to play around the idea. This is a good discussion. I agree with Kai, having a good and stable backend / database is critical to this project’s future. OTOH Emmanuel’s point that we’re open source (volunteers) is an obvious inhibiting factor. So, do we have SWAG’s for the number of hours required for both approaches, i.e. apacheds w/ LMDB or Mavibot? If we can have an apacheds & lmdb release in a few weeks, where mavibot might take many months, it might be worth a shot. Otherwise we should stay the course and not get sidetracked. (my two cents) Shawn
