You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hc.apache.org by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> on 2008/02/01 10:17:32 UTC
Re: MIME module (svn commit: r615594 ff)
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 18:07 +0100, Roland Weber wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=615594&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Added HttpClient MIME module
>
> thanks a lot for taking care of this. I haven't had time
> yet to look into, but I'll try to update my local build
> next weekend.
>
> Should we have a modules discussion for alpha3 or delay
> that until alpha4? Later would be impractical, we should
> rather make a choice early on and then stick with it.
>
Roland et al,
I guess it is about time. Feel free to kick off the discussion. This
also may be a good opportunity to discuss our options for NTLM support.
Oleg
> cheers,
> Roland
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: NTLM stuff, again; was Re: MIME module (svn commit: r615594 ff)
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 19:48 +0100, Roland Weber wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
> >
> > The trouble is that even if we had clear-cut guidelines about the use of
> > LGPL libraries in ASF projects it would not get any further, because at
> > this point no one expressed willingness to take upon the task of writing
> > an auth scheme based on JCIFS. It will not be me at any rate. So,
> > presently there is no way around depending on our old code, barring
> > dropping NTLM support altogether. The question is whether we want to
> > depend on the HttpClient 3.1 binary or import old NTLM code to the new
> > codeline.
>
> Contrib code that depends on the HttpClient 3.1 binary is my preference.
> I'd be interested in looking into jCIFS, but will have no spare cycles
> for it. It would be good to have some NTLM code to get HTTPCLIENT-652
> right, but we could also work that out with dummy state or SSL client
> authentication. If there is a lot of interest in NTLM support from the
> community, there should also be volunteers.
> The reason why I want to defer this discussion beyond alpha3 is that I
> will not have cycles left for HTTPCLIENT-652 either, and that seems to
> be a prerequisite for NTLM support.
>
All right. Let's postpone the decision for one more ALPHA release
Oleg
> cheers,
> Roland
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: NTLM stuff, again; was Re: MIME module (svn commit: r615594 ff)
Posted by Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net>.
Hi Oleg,
>
> The trouble is that even if we had clear-cut guidelines about the use of
> LGPL libraries in ASF projects it would not get any further, because at
> this point no one expressed willingness to take upon the task of writing
> an auth scheme based on JCIFS. It will not be me at any rate. So,
> presently there is no way around depending on our old code, barring
> dropping NTLM support altogether. The question is whether we want to
> depend on the HttpClient 3.1 binary or import old NTLM code to the new
> codeline.
Contrib code that depends on the HttpClient 3.1 binary is my preference.
I'd be interested in looking into jCIFS, but will have no spare cycles
for it. It would be good to have some NTLM code to get HTTPCLIENT-652
right, but we could also work that out with dummy state or SSL client
authentication. If there is a lot of interest in NTLM support from the
community, there should also be volunteers.
The reason why I want to defer this discussion beyond alpha3 is that I
will not have cycles left for HTTPCLIENT-652 either, and that seems to
be a prerequisite for NTLM support.
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
NTLM stuff, again; was Re: MIME module (svn commit: r615594 ff)
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 19:12 +0100, Roland Weber wrote:
> Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> > [...] may be a good opportunity to discuss our options for NTLM support.
>
> There was recently another thread about LGPL on legal-discuss.
> It left me confused as ever, but it seems that
> a) MINA will host code that depends directly on LGPL
> b) Sam Ruby is preparing some guideline for board approval
> in one of the next board meetings
>
> I suggest to keep NTLM support and HTTPCLIENT-652 out of
> alpha3 and to hope that Sam will have a final guideline or
> policy or whatevery after the March or April board meeting.
>
Roland et al,
The trouble is that even if we had clear-cut guidelines about the use of
LGPL libraries in ASF projects it would not get any further, because at
this point no one expressed willingness to take upon the task of writing
an auth scheme based on JCIFS. It will not be me at any rate. So,
presently there is no way around depending on our old code, barring
dropping NTLM support altogether. The question is whether we want to
depend on the HttpClient 3.1 binary or import old NTLM code to the new
codeline.
Oleg
> cheers,
> Roland
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: MIME module (svn commit: r615594 ff)
Posted by Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net>.
Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> [...] may be a good opportunity to discuss our options for NTLM support.
There was recently another thread about LGPL on legal-discuss.
It left me confused as ever, but it seems that
a) MINA will host code that depends directly on LGPL
b) Sam Ruby is preparing some guideline for board approval
in one of the next board meetings
I suggest to keep NTLM support and HTTPCLIENT-652 out of
alpha3 and to hope that Sam will have a final guideline or
policy or whatevery after the March or April board meeting.
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org