> > > > Looking closer at LDAP's current handling of groups, I think the necessary > changes may actually be pretty minimal. I'm in favor of including this in > scope. > > Sounds good t ome.
> I'll be opening up the first of several PRs shortly with the base API > changes. The overall set of changes so far is around 8K lines, but I think > it should be reviewable if broken into logical pieces. > > Wow, that's a lot of changes :-). I'll try to be ready to do some reviews, but I'll also ask the other committers to be ready, as well - with that much changing it could probably use a couple of pairs of eyes on it. > I've also encountered a couple of separate issues which needed to be > addressed for the sake of groups, and for which I will be opening new JIRA > issues: > > * The UserContext and AuthenticationProvider interfaces continue to be > cumbersome when applying new API changes, due to the sheer number of > duplicate stub functions that need to be added to all extensions. I've > created a AbstractUserContext and AbstractAuthenticationProvider to deal > with this. > > This actually reminds me of a related topic I've been meaning to bring up about extensions vs. authentication providers and if we need to maybe abstract or renaming "Authentication Providers" to just "Guacamole Extensions." But that's worth a separate thread... > * The extension system currently properly isolates extensions from each > other, but does not fully isolate extensions from the webapp. While > extensions *should* inherit classes from the webapp, any classes included > with the extension should take priority. I have ClassLoader-related changes > to the extension system which address that issue. > Agreed, and sounds good. -Nick
