Just FYI, Apache Directory Studio, the Ldap browser we are also
providing, will allow users to directly launch the server, and configure
it, directly from Studio. This will be very helpful for people who want
to get a grip on LDAP, before dealing with the server installation, and
such.
It's expected to be released in the next few weeks.
Rich Remington wrote:
Thanks for the response and I do understand it's a volunteer effort
and am very grateful for this! I have a few other comments in reply
below.
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Hi Rich,
thanks for this mil. I will not reply on the Mac installer pbs you
are mentionning, others will do. I just want to give you some
insingths abouut some of your questions.
1) Server.xml
* The server.xml syntax changed between 1.5.1 and 1.5.2. This seems
like a deviation from the version numbering policies at Apache,
but I could be wrong.
There is nothing such as a Apache policy for versioning, for the
record. We have had long discussions two years ago about ApacheDS
versioning policy, and came with these policies :
- we have a X.Y.Z number scheme
- X.0.Z means stable version. ie, versions where functionalities are
not added, where data stored into the backend are binary compatible,
and where the configuration files are compatible.
- X.5.Z are unstable versions, ie version which are subject to
changes, including configuration files.
- 0.Z are for bug fixes
- 5.Z are for functional additions, and of course bug fixes.
- when X.5.Z is ready, the next version is (X+1).0.0
So in our case, the 5 means : 'in between X and X+1 version'. Half
backed server :). I understand that the site does not clearly state
that...
Now that you mention it, I may have read this somewhere in my search
through various docs, but it is not something that is really obvious
for the new user downloading from the main link off the home page. If
you (or some other person) could modify the 1.5.x download page to
state this up front, I suspect you will not catch other folks by
surprise like it did me. I'm not afraid of trying out new versions, I
just want to know before hand that I may be working with an unstable
product.
FYI, I have since gone back to version 1.0.2 and have had far fewer
issues. I know these things will get resolved in future versions,
but I am guessing that more than a few people are getting a "less
than good" taste in their mouths after trying out the latest versions.
This is a risk we took. 1.0 is now two years old (barely), and 2.0 is
at least 3 months far from being out. You have to know that ADS is a
pretty big piece of code (around 400 000 slocs), and it takes a huge
amount of time to make it working, fast, compliant and powerfull. The
current 1.5 version is running 5 times faster than the 1.0, with far
less LDAP issues, and with a far better internal structure.
Documentation is also lacking for the very same reason : people are
reluctant to document a moving target...
Finally, I am not sure I would have the most prominent ApacheDS link
(on the home page) pointing to version 1.5.x at this point. That
should be for those willing to tolerate code that is [not quite]
ready for prime time IMHO.
You may be right.
Last, not least, remember that it's a volunteer based project, and we
are not that many working on it ! Any contribution is very welcome !
FYI, I meant to say "... not quite ready for prime time" in my
original post. Anyway, I wish I knew more about LDAP, so I could
contribute to the code base. Working with LDAP is just a tangent to
my "real" job. The only way I know how to help is to point out things
that may trip up others in my situation.
Thanks !
You're very welcome and, again, thanks for your efforts and taking the
time to respond!
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
