Here is the code: http://reviewboard.liftweb.net/r/211/diff/1/
Looks pretty straight-forward. we still need an ldap to use a test: ldap.bigfoot.com:389 seens like a good choice http://raleigh.pm.org/ldap-talk.html On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <[email protected]>wrote: > I have tried to follow that discussion as best I could too. > If we start to use it, it might also speed things up a bit. There is > nothing better for a developer than seeing his work being implemented and > used :-) > > - anne > > > On 18. mars 2010, at 19.24, Richard Hirsch wrote: > > > Based on what I've seen on the lift mailing list, the LDAP support in > lift > > is still in its early stages but it should still provide an excellent > start > > for us. > > > > D. > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> I don't really have an opinion about LDAP aside from thinking that we > >> need it. I definitely support this approach. > >> > >> Ethan > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >>> Let's say that the UI + LDAP + bug fixes are the focus for the next > >> release. > >>> Everything else goes into the backlog. > >>> > >>> D. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe > >>> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On 18. mars 2010, at 14.21, Ethan Jewett wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I think we should really limit our focus for Jira items that are in > >>>>> releases. When a JIRA item is included in a release (rather than the > >>>>> backlog), I take that to mean that we will not release until that > item > >>>>> is addressed. If we will release without an item being addressed, I > >>>>> think it should stay in the backlog, or be scheduled for a different > >>>>> (future) release. Is that how others understand it? Maybe not :-) > >>>>> > >>>> +1 > >>>> For the next .point releases I think it is good if we didn't take too > >> much > >>>> water over our heads. > >>>> > >>>>> With that understanding, I think we need to decide if the UI or LDAP > >>>>> support is higher priority (or if they are equal). If LDAP is as > >>>>> important as the UI, let's put it in the 1.1 release. If it's not, > >>>>> let's move it to the backlog or to a 1.2 release (and put off moving > >>>>> to Lift 2.0 until that point). > >>>> > >>>> LDAP support is important. > >>>> I know we missed a few opportunities last year because we didn't > support > >>>> it, so I would like to keep it in release 1.1 > >>>> > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Ethan > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> I just noticed that "Add LDAP to ESME" is a Jira task tagged for the > >> 1.1 > >>>> release. > >>>>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-135) > >>>>>> Then I would say yes let's use the Lift 2.0 snapshot. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 18. mars 2010, at 05.03, Richard Hirsch wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1.1 with UI > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe > >>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Which release do you refer to as next? > >>>>>>>> If RC2 I'd say no. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - anne > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 17. mars 2010, at 13.22, Richard Hirsch wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do we want to use the 2.0 snapshot for the next release? We would > >> get > >>>>>>>> LDAP > >>>>>>>>> support which is now part of the current snapshot? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Maybe someone can try it out in a branch.... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Last time I checked, there were breaking changes... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> D. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
