On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 09:16 +0100, Roland Weber wrote: > Hi Cathy, Oleg, > > please apologize my dropping a bit of salt into the soup. > > Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:18 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Hi Oleg, > >> > > > > Hi Cathy > > > >> I am investigating what it would take to add NTLMv2 support to the Apache > >> HttpClient as well as integrated Windows authentication for both NTLMv1 > >> and v2. I have seen your name on numerous messages in the forum > >> regarding NTLM, so thought I write you. Is this support something you > >> would be interested to see contributed back to the HttpClient? What are > >> the restrictions on this? > > > > Absolutely. We would love to see a better support for NTLMv2 in > > HttpClient. > > Yes, we would love to see better support for NTLMv2 in HttpClient. > But what we would not want to see is somebody dropping a huge block > of code on us without giving further support. There will be user > questions on how things work or why they don't, and there will be > bugs that need fixing.
Roland Not that we are able to properly maintain the existing NTLM code either. A better and cleaner NTLM implementation would be still be a big step forward. > Will there also be developers staying with > the code to answer those questions and fix those bugs? > As far as I can tell, the OSS expertise around NTLM currently resides > at Samba/jCIFS. That's why our thoughts revolved around using jCIFS: > we wouldn't need to become NTLM experts ourselves. > We have been waiting several years for an approval to depend on LGPL libraries. How long do you suggest we should wait? > If the idea is to create a self-sustaining subproject for NTLM, I'm > all for it. But that means Incubator, not a code donation to us. The purpose of incubation is to form a community around a code base. The scope of NTLM is too narrow to expect a self-sustaining community to form around it. So what is the point of incubating that piece code in the first place? > A question that remains is whether it makes sense to duplicate > the efforts of the Samba team at Apache. > The scope of jCIFS is _significantly_ broader than just NTLM stuff. NTLMv1 code in HttpClient 3.1 is just a _single_ class. Even if split that code into a number of smaller classes it would still be nowhere close to jCIFS. Oleg > cheers, > Roland > > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200802.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management > [3] > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
