You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@felix.apache.org by Rodrigo Madera <ro...@gmail.com> on 2007/10/11 01:31:13 UTC
Felix UserAdmin
Hello community,
Some time ago I posted a message asking if anyone knew an implementation for
UserAdmin.
I see that the OSGi spec requires UserAdmin to exist, but Felix doesn't have
one.
Does this mean that Felix is not yet fully compliant?
Thank you for your input,
Rodrigo
Re: Felix UserAdmin
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
On Oct 11, 2007, at 16:38 , Rodrigo Madera wrote:
> And what would a Felix user be recommended to use for UserAdmin?
Well, that depends on your needs. As with any compendium service,
multiple implementations are possible. What makes sense in one case,
might not in another. So we can never recommend any one specific
implementation for all cases.
In the past, I have used the implementation that comes with
Knopflerfish, and I have written my own. Furthermore, I think the
Apache Directory Server project might have one that is backed by that
DS (which might make sense if you have a large number of users you
want to maintain).
Greetings, Marcel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Felix UserAdmin
Posted by Rodrigo Madera <ro...@gmail.com>.
And what would a Felix user be recommended to use for UserAdmin?
Thanks,
Rodrigo
On 10/11/07, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>
> Rodrigo Madera wrote:
> > Hello community,
> >
> > Some time ago I posted a message asking if anyone knew an implementation
> for
> > UserAdmin.
> >
> > I see that the OSGi spec requires UserAdmin to exist, but Felix doesn't
> have
> > one.
> >
>
> The OSGi spec does not require a UserAdmin to exist...I am fairly
> certain that all service specifications are optional.
>
> > Does this mean that Felix is not yet fully compliant?
> >
>
> So, that doesn't mean that Felix isn't compliant, but Felix is NOT
> compliant due to various core features that need to yet be implemented.
> The biggest unimplemented feature is fragments, but I am sure there are
> other minor issues too. I hope to start taking a stab at fragments
> before too long. UserAdmin has no impact on framework compliance.
>
> -> richard
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
Re: Felix UserAdmin
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Rodrigo Madera wrote:
> Hello community,
>
> Some time ago I posted a message asking if anyone knew an implementation for
> UserAdmin.
>
> I see that the OSGi spec requires UserAdmin to exist, but Felix doesn't have
> one.
>
The OSGi spec does not require a UserAdmin to exist...I am fairly
certain that all service specifications are optional.
> Does this mean that Felix is not yet fully compliant?
>
So, that doesn't mean that Felix isn't compliant, but Felix is NOT
compliant due to various core features that need to yet be implemented.
The biggest unimplemented feature is fragments, but I am sure there are
other minor issues too. I hope to start taking a stab at fragments
before too long. UserAdmin has no impact on framework compliance.
-> richard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org