That would be awesome Zac. Let me know when you get close, as promised before I would be happy to help with the integration into the main line (build/packing etc).
We should also create a JIRA other than KNOX-727 to track and discuss this. There may be one already and I just missed itŠ Sumit On 8/10/16, 12:54 AM, "Zac Blanco" <[email protected]> wrote: >I've been working on the admin page on and off over the last month. If >we're aiming for read-only then I think I should have something up in a >week or so. (If I'm only working with the current feature set of the admin >API). > >Definitely doable for 0.10.0. > >On Aug 9, 2016 1:40 PM, "Sumit Gupta" <[email protected]> wrote: > >9/23 is a good goal for 0.10.0. +1. > > >On 8/9/16, 4:16 PM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Yes, 1.5 months gets a +1 from me. >>Should we call it 9/23rd? >> >>Metrics and a read-only admin page for that timeframe sound great. >> >>Personally, I would like to see an admin page and some uptake of LDAP >>improvements before we stamp a 1.0.0. >>I could be convinced to go before anyone wants to try. :) >> >>On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Sumit Gupta <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >>> Hey Larry, >>> >>> Thanks for reviving the thread. >>> >>> LDAP improvements seems like a decent theme and there is definitely a >>> bunch of work to be done there. >>> >>> A couple of other things that would be good to have before we go for a >>>1.0 >>> are (so we could consider including it in 0.10.0): >>> >>> 1. Adding metrics capabiltiies (so that we can get to metering and >>> throttling) : KNOX-643 >>> 2. A basic admin UI : KNOX-727? (we likely need another JIRA) >>> >>> Also to close the loop on the 0.10.0 vs 1.0.0 question. I think we are >>> saying that 0.10.0 is not a 1.0.0 release. And if so, I +1 that >>>decision. >>> >>> The last thing to call out, is the dev time we are aiming at for the >>>next >>> release. I think I saw 1.5 months mentioned on another thread. I am >>> certainly good with that and will always support the idea of more >>>frequent >>> releases. So +1 from my side to a 1.5 month duration for the next >>>release. >>> >>> >>> Sumit >>> >>> >>> On 8/7/16, 12:11 PM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >All - >>> > >>> >Now that we have released 0.9.1 we should resurrect this thread and >>>plan >>> >the theme for 0.10.0 release. >>> > >>> >The filter [1] shows the JIRAs currently set for Fix Version 0.10.0, >>>just >>> >as my previous proposal on this thread, it seems that LDAP related >>> >improvements are the dominate theme. >>> > >>> >With recent JIRA filings and patches provided, we have identified a >>>few >>> >pain points related to LDAP search/lookup. >>> >A couple different approaches to optimize the group lookup may be >>> >competing, separate options or complementary - we need to rationalize >>> >exactly what optimizations are needed as part of this release. >>> > >>> >I will create a wiki page for Knox Improvement Proposal for the LDAP >>> >improvements where we can capture the direction and implementation >>>details >>> >for this as the central theme for 0.10.0. >>> > >>> >Thoughts on the theme and KIP page for capturing a coherent proposal? >>> > >>> >thanks, >>> > >>> >--larry >>> > >>> >[1] - >>> >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-461?jql= >>> project%20%3D%20KNOX%20 >>> >AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20resolution%20%3D% >>> 20Unresolved%20AND%20fi >>> >xVersion%20%3D%200.10.0%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C% >>> 20priority%20DESC%2C%2 >>> >0created%20ASC >>> > >>> >On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:11 AM, larry mccay <[email protected]> >>>wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Sumit - >>> >> >>> >> I'm sorry that I missed this email! >>> >> >>> >> I am +1 on you as the release manager. >>> >> >>> >> I think that we should probably identify the driving features for >>>0.10.0 >>> >> first and then follow up that discussion with whether or not we can >>>make >>> >> this a 1.0.0 but I believe that we would need to ensure two things: >>> >> >>> >> 1. package name clean up >>> >> 2. API, programming model definition - once we go 1.0.0 we have >>> >>different >>> >> requirements for backward compatibility >>> >> >>> >> Are we happy with the ClientDSL model, with various base classes for >>> >> providers, etc? >>> >> >>> >> In terms of features for 0.10.0 - I have a couple in mind: >>> >> >>> >> 1. Centralized LDAP configuration that can be used across multiple >>> >> topologies >>> >> 2. Integration of the hadoop group lookup pluging as an identity >>> >>assertion >>> >> extension (LDAP, unix, etc) >>> >> 3. Group lookup API for KnoxSSO extension >>> >> 4. Logout API for KnoxSSO >>> >> 5. Service description pages - perhaps test pages >>> >> >>> >> Thoughts? >>> >> >>> >> --larry >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:19 PM, sumit gupta <[email protected]> >>>wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> In light of the recent 0.9.1 planning discuss thread, I thought I >>> >>> would take the opportunity to kick off a discussion about the next >>> >>> release for Knox. >>> >>> >>> >>> The main discussion points I have so far for this release are: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Should this release be the 1.0.0 release for Knox? >>> >>> 2. What are the main features that we would like to target for this >>> >>> release? >>> >>> >>> >>> Once we decide on the scope of the release we can collectively come >>>up >>> >>> with a target release date. I would also be happy to volunteer as >>>the >>> >>> release manager for this release, if there is no objection. >>> >>> >>> >>> In relation to point number 1, I would be interested in seeking >>> >>> opinion on what we would like to do in terms of package names or >>>any >>> >>> other changes to the structure of the source or build. I'm not sure >>>if >>> >>> there is a set of conventions or guidelines for an Apache project >>>to >>> >>> follow when releasing a 1.0.0, so any insight or advice there would >>> >>> also be greatly appreciated. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Sumit. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
