Menu
▾
▴
bodington-developers — Mailing list for Bodington developers
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(41) |
May
(353) |
Jun
(133) |
Jul
(534) |
Aug
(401) |
Sep
(219) |
Oct
(86) |
Nov
(144) |
Dec
(61) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 |
Jan
(200) |
Feb
(130) |
Mar
(345) |
Apr
(153) |
May
(247) |
Jun
(338) |
Jul
(222) |
Aug
(70) |
Sep
(39) |
Oct
(27) |
Nov
(76) |
Dec
(30) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(81) |
Feb
(44) |
Mar
(9) |
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(34) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(6) |
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(5) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(7) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-08-01 19:45:25
|
Aggie, for me its the setup with the ultrafast localhost connection from the client to the server or the pretty damn fast campus connection that throw exceptions. I'm wondering whether its so fast that the Novell LDAP API timing problems are more likely to occur.. Andrew Booth wrote: > I have been testing from home via BT ADSL to the Leeds AD. > > My ADSL is currently running at 2272 Kb/s in and 288 Kb/s out. > > When I try it normally, I get exceptions and timeouts. > Presumably it just can't connect - the AD is firewalled against off campus access. You would get an exception on every single attempt to connect. > When I go in through the University of Leeds VPN, it works fine. > So I don't think it is related to the speed of the connection - it works > fine at 288Kb/s. > My theory is that it fails on a fast e.g. 100Mbs ethernet connection with low latency and works on slower response network but not on every attempt to connect - it's random. > Are you sure that this isn't something to do with the Leeds firewall? > > Aggie > > -----Original Message----- > From: bod...@li... > [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of Jon > Maber > Sent: 01 August 2006 18:24 > To: a.g...@le...; Bodington developers > Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games > > It's not the LDAP server that's the problem - my test fails against > OpenLDAP and AD directories. It's the client side that is dodgy. From > home I don't have access to any AD directories so I'm testing against > OpenLDAP. > > Andrew Booth wrote: > >> OpenLDAP? >> >> I thought we were testing the LDAP in AD. >> >> Aggie >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bod...@li... >> [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of >> > Jon > >> Maber >> Sent: 01 August 2006 17:16 >> To: Bodington developers >> Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games >> >> I've got two near identical test scenarios - one throws exceptions the >> other doesn't; >> >> 1) Both access the same OpenLDAP server >> 2) Both running linux although slightly different kernel numbers. (one >> that fails is newer) >> 3) Both running the same release of the same version of Java >> 4) Both using the same compiled test class and the same jar files - not >> merely the same version but the same files on a single shared network >> > drive. > >> The only significant difference is that the one that fails has a faster >> network link to the LDAP server than the one that doesn't fail. >> >> Peter Crowther wrote: >> >> >>>> From: Andrew Booth >>>> OK - I've downloaded the latest jar file and recompiled the >>>> test stuff. >>>> >>>> Still works OK. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> That seems to exclude my idea, then. Good - one fewer area to test :-). >>> >>> - Peter >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >>> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share >>> >>> >> your >> >> >>> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash >>> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bodington-developers mailing list >>> Bod...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share >> > your > >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share >> > your > >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-08-01 19:23:59
|
I have blogged some info on this, from Bb, from some observers, from the US patent office. This is crazy stuff, and as some have pointed out, very dangerous for many of us. http://www.weblogs.uhi.ac.uk/sm00sm/?p=229 |
|
From: Andrew B. <a.g...@le...> - 2006-08-01 18:59:51
|
I have been testing from home via BT ADSL to the Leeds AD. My ADSL is currently running at 2272 Kb/s in and 288 Kb/s out. When I try it normally, I get exceptions and timeouts. When I go in through the University of Leeds VPN, it works fine. So I don't think it is related to the speed of the connection - it works fine at 288Kb/s. Are you sure that this isn't something to do with the Leeds firewall? Aggie -----Original Message----- From: bod...@li... [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of Jon Maber Sent: 01 August 2006 18:24 To: a.g...@le...; Bodington developers Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games It's not the LDAP server that's the problem - my test fails against OpenLDAP and AD directories. It's the client side that is dodgy. From home I don't have access to any AD directories so I'm testing against OpenLDAP. Andrew Booth wrote: > OpenLDAP? > > I thought we were testing the LDAP in AD. > > Aggie > > -----Original Message----- > From: bod...@li... > [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of Jon > Maber > Sent: 01 August 2006 17:16 > To: Bodington developers > Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games > > I've got two near identical test scenarios - one throws exceptions the > other doesn't; > > 1) Both access the same OpenLDAP server > 2) Both running linux although slightly different kernel numbers. (one > that fails is newer) > 3) Both running the same release of the same version of Java > 4) Both using the same compiled test class and the same jar files - not > merely the same version but the same files on a single shared network drive. > > The only significant difference is that the one that fails has a faster > network link to the LDAP server than the one that doesn't fail. > > Peter Crowther wrote: > >>> From: Andrew Booth >>> OK - I've downloaded the latest jar file and recompiled the >>> test stuff. >>> >>> Still works OK. >>> >>> >> That seems to exclude my idea, then. Good - one fewer area to test :-). >> >> - Peter >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share >> > your > >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bodington-developers mailing list Bod...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-08-01 17:24:08
|
It's not the LDAP server that's the problem - my test fails against OpenLDAP and AD directories. It's the client side that is dodgy. From home I don't have access to any AD directories so I'm testing against OpenLDAP. Andrew Booth wrote: > OpenLDAP? > > I thought we were testing the LDAP in AD. > > Aggie > > -----Original Message----- > From: bod...@li... > [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of Jon > Maber > Sent: 01 August 2006 17:16 > To: Bodington developers > Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games > > I've got two near identical test scenarios - one throws exceptions the > other doesn't; > > 1) Both access the same OpenLDAP server > 2) Both running linux although slightly different kernel numbers. (one > that fails is newer) > 3) Both running the same release of the same version of Java > 4) Both using the same compiled test class and the same jar files - not > merely the same version but the same files on a single shared network drive. > > The only significant difference is that the one that fails has a faster > network link to the LDAP server than the one that doesn't fail. > > Peter Crowther wrote: > >>> From: Andrew Booth >>> OK - I've downloaded the latest jar file and recompiled the >>> test stuff. >>> >>> Still works OK. >>> >>> >> That seems to exclude my idea, then. Good - one fewer area to test :-). >> >> - Peter >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share >> > your > >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-08-01 17:21:58
|
Sean Mehan wrote: > cool, let's see some ping and bing times to quantify this network > congestion difference. > The fastest link was via the localhost device and when I tried against the University AD it was a dedicated 100Mbs ethernet line to a router on the really really fast ATM network (I think). The slower connection that works is through my high latency 54Mbps wireless network. > > what are the kernels and distros? > PC That doesn't throw exceptions; Linux version 2.6.9-1.667 (bhc...@tw...) (gcc version 3.4.2 20041017 (Red Hat 3.4.2-6.fc3)) #1 Tue Nov 2 14:41:25 EST 2004 PC That does; Linux version 2.6.17-1.2145_FC5 (bre...@hs...) (gcc version 4.1.1 2006 0525 (Red Hat 4.1.1-1)) #1 Sat Jul 1 13:03:45 EDT 2006 I've been digging in the source code for OpenLDAP and I think it's related to poor coding in relation to handling timings. As a test of that theory I set the LDAP search timeout to infinity and the exceptions stopped. Setting the search timeout to any finite value causes exceptions on one particular client PC. Of course I also chopped out the custom Socket Factory but that made no difference at all. My sneaking suspicion is that the conversation with the LDAP server starts in one thread while another thread prepares to receive the response but the response comes back before that setup is complete. Mostly it seems to be trying to clear semaphores that don't exist and carries on executing anyway but from time to time it just locks up. |
|
From: Andrew B. <a.g...@le...> - 2006-08-01 17:08:39
|
OpenLDAP? I thought we were testing the LDAP in AD. Aggie -----Original Message----- From: bod...@li... [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of = Jon Maber Sent: 01 August 2006 17:16 To: Bodington developers Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games I've got two near identical test scenarios - one throws exceptions the=20 other doesn't; 1) Both access the same OpenLDAP server 2) Both running linux although slightly different kernel numbers. (one=20 that fails is newer) 3) Both running the same release of the same version of Java 4) Both using the same compiled test class and the same jar files - not=20 merely the same version but the same files on a single shared network = drive. The only significant difference is that the one that fails has a faster=20 network link to the LDAP server than the one that doesn't fail. Peter Crowther wrote: >> From: Andrew Booth >> OK - I've downloaded the latest jar file and recompiled the=20 >> test stuff. >> >> Still works OK. >> =20 > > That seems to exclude my idea, then. Good - one fewer area to test = :-). > > - Peter > > = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to = share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn = cash > = http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=3Djoin.php&p=3Dsourceforge&CID=3D= DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share = your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=3Djoin.php&p=3Dsourceforge&CID=3D= DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bodington-developers mailing list Bod...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-08-01 16:23:15
|
cool, let's see some ping and bing times to quantify this network congestion difference. what are the kernels and distros? s On 1 Aug 2006, at 17:16, Jon Maber wrote: > I've got two near identical test scenarios - one throws exceptions the > other doesn't; > > 1) Both access the same OpenLDAP server > 2) Both running linux although slightly different kernel numbers. (one > that fails is newer) > 3) Both running the same release of the same version of Java > 4) Both using the same compiled test class and the same jar files - > not > merely the same version but the same files on a single shared > network drive. > > The only significant difference is that the one that fails has a > faster > network link to the LDAP server than the one that doesn't fail. > > Peter Crowther wrote: >>> From: Andrew Booth >>> OK - I've downloaded the latest jar file and recompiled the >>> test stuff. >>> >>> Still works OK. >>> >> >> That seems to exclude my idea, then. Good - one fewer area to >> test :-). >> >> - Peter >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to >> share your >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn >> cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? >> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn > cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-08-01 16:16:16
|
I've got two near identical test scenarios - one throws exceptions the other doesn't; 1) Both access the same OpenLDAP server 2) Both running linux although slightly different kernel numbers. (one that fails is newer) 3) Both running the same release of the same version of Java 4) Both using the same compiled test class and the same jar files - not merely the same version but the same files on a single shared network drive. The only significant difference is that the one that fails has a faster network link to the LDAP server than the one that doesn't fail. Peter Crowther wrote: >> From: Andrew Booth >> OK - I've downloaded the latest jar file and recompiled the >> test stuff. >> >> Still works OK. >> > > That seems to exclude my idea, then. Good - one fewer area to test :-). > > - Peter > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > |
|
From: Peter C. <Pet...@me...> - 2006-08-01 15:37:23
|
> From: Andrew Booth > OK - I've downloaded the latest jar file and recompiled the=20 > test stuff. >=20 > Still works OK. That seems to exclude my idea, then. Good - one fewer area to test :-). - Peter |
|
From: Andrew B. <a.g...@le...> - 2006-08-01 15:31:16
|
OK - I've downloaded the latest jar file and recompiled the test stuff. Still works OK. Aggie -----Original Message----- From: bod...@li... [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of Jon Maber Sent: 01 August 2006 16:05 To: Bodington developers Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games Alistair Young wrote: >> Ldap.jar file taken from Bodington HEAD >> > ditto > I used the most recent ldap.jar from the Novell web site, i.e. 2006.06.22-1 because that's what you told me to use! I ran it inside NetBeans with JDK 1.5.0_06. Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bodington-developers mailing list Bod...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-08-01 15:05:24
|
Alistair Young wrote: >> Ldap.jar file taken from Bodington HEAD >> > ditto > I used the most recent ldap.jar from the Novell web site, i.e. 2006.06.22-1 because that's what you told me to use! I ran it inside NetBeans with JDK 1.5.0_06. Jon |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-08-01 15:01:56
|
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33396 On 1 Aug 2006, at 12:45, Adam Marshall wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Metcalfe via RT [mailto:oss...@rt...] > Sent: 01 August 2006 12:20 > To: ada...@ou... > Subject: Re: [rt.oucs.ox.ac.uk #983489] OSS VLEs &Bb patent > > > > Hi Adam, > > (Glad to see that your inquiry has finally made to our RT queue :-) ) > > Obviously this is a cause for concern, even if Blackboard's patent > pending in the European Union fails at the outset. Many of the larger > open source VLE projects are based in countries where such a patent > application might be successful (initially) and that will have > ramifications on all such development work no matter where it is > located. > > The full implications will take time to evaluate. Rowan is better > placed > to give an initial assessment of the patent itself as I know he has > been > giving it a close read. But the real issue probably turns on > whether the > patent can be overturned on a 'prior art' argument, or whether > Blackboard will treat this as merely a defensive patent, in much > the way > IBM and others do with much of their patent portfolio. > > The latter already appears not to be the case as, I believe, suit has > been filed against Desire2Learn. The former is still up in the air. I > know that the leaders of other open source VLE projects are currently > gathering whatever data they can in case a prior art case needs to be > launched. > > In the short term, I would recommend that Bodington do that as well. > Meanwhile OSS Watch will be following this development closely and > will > let you know as and when we have further information or further > thoughts > on the implications. > > If you were wondering whether this is a one-off, you'll find it isn't. > Blackboard has a great of number of patents pending. > > http://v3.espacenet.com/results? > sf=a&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPODOC&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&P > R=&PD=&PA=blackboard > > > Best wishes, > > Randy > > > -- > Randy Metcalfe Research Technologies Service > OSS Watch University of Oxford > 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN > t. +44 (0) 1865 283416 > http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/ > > > > Adam Marshall via RT wrote: >> <URL: https://rt.oucs.ox.ac.uk/Ticket/Display.html?id=983489 > >> >> Now that Bodington is OSS (or at least will be with the next release >> in a week or so), could OSS Watch give their view on the >> implications of Blackboard's patent: >> http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1192615 ? >> >> adam >> >> >> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn > cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-08-01 14:48:22
|
> Ldap.jar file taken from Bodington HEAD ditto Alistair On 1 Aug 2006, at 15:42, Andrew Booth wrote: > D:\eclipse\workspace\ADDebug>java -version > java version "1.5.0_05" > Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_05-b05) > Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_05-b05, mixed mode) > > Ldap.jar file taken from Bodington HEAD > > Aggie > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bod...@li... > [mailto:bod...@li...] On > Behalf Of > Peter Crowther > Sent: 01 August 2006 15:39 > To: Bodington developers > Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games > >> From: Jon Maber >> Exception in thread "Thread-4" java.lang.RuntimeException: >> Connection.freeWriteSemaphore(7): thread does not own the semaphore, >> owned by -3 > > Jon, what JDK version are you running and what set of libraries? > Aggie > and Alistair, ditto? That feels a little too much like a JDK issue > for > comfort... > > - Peter > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn > cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn > cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-08-01 14:47:54
|
Forgot to add, tried it on Mac OS X JDK 1.5.0_06 and Suse Linux 1.5.0_06 and 1.4.2_01 Alistair On 1 Aug 2006, at 15:39, Peter Crowther wrote: >> From: Jon Maber >> Exception in thread "Thread-4" java.lang.RuntimeException: >> Connection.freeWriteSemaphore(7): thread does not own the semaphore, >> owned by -3 > > Jon, what JDK version are you running and what set of libraries? > Aggie > and Alistair, ditto? That feels a little too much like a JDK issue > for > comfort... > > - Peter > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn > cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Andrew B. <a.g...@le...> - 2006-08-01 14:42:59
|
D:\eclipse\workspace\ADDebug>java -version java version "1.5.0_05" Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_05-b05) Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_05-b05, mixed mode) Ldap.jar file taken from Bodington HEAD Aggie -----Original Message----- From: bod...@li... [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of Peter Crowther Sent: 01 August 2006 15:39 To: Bodington developers Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games > From: Jon Maber > Exception in thread "Thread-4" java.lang.RuntimeException: > Connection.freeWriteSemaphore(7): thread does not own the semaphore, > owned by -3 Jon, what JDK version are you running and what set of libraries? Aggie and Alistair, ditto? That feels a little too much like a JDK issue for comfort... - Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bodington-developers mailing list Bod...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Peter C. <Pet...@me...> - 2006-08-01 14:39:19
|
> From: Jon Maber > Exception in thread "Thread-4" java.lang.RuntimeException:=20 > Connection.freeWriteSemaphore(7): thread does not own the semaphore,=20 > owned by -3 Jon, what JDK version are you running and what set of libraries? Aggie and Alistair, ditto? That feels a little too much like a JDK issue for comfort... - Peter |
|
From: Atif S. <BM...@bm...> - 2006-08-01 14:35:48
|
Sean Mehan wrote: >Right, jon. Ping - pong, the ball is *firmly* back on your side of >the table!-) > > >switch to jndi --2 > >xxooxx!=) >-s > > > Jon u need a new laptop 2++. Switch 2 jndi --2. Ta Atif. |
|
From: Andrew B. <a.g...@le...> - 2006-08-01 14:35:29
|
Jon Come over and try it from one of the machines in my office. 10.115 Garstang. Aggie -----Original Message----- From: bod...@li... [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of Jon Maber Sent: 01 August 2006 13:10 To: Bodington developers Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games Alistair Young wrote: >> I still feel a switch to JNDI is needed >> > I don't see why. We've run the openLDAP api against AD, openLDAP and > eDirectory for 2 years now without any problems. It doesn't work on > your laptop. Is that a reason to change everything? I don't think so. > Run the test, see the errors, tell me I'm wrong then. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bodington-developers mailing list Bod...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-08-01 14:32:34
|
Right, jon. Ping - pong, the ball is *firmly* back on your side of the table!-) switch to jndi --2 xxooxx!=) -s On 1 Aug 2006, at 15:26, Andrew Booth wrote: > It works for me: > > private static final String admin_dn = > "cn=myADusername,ou=fbs,ou=users,ou=bio,ou=temp,DC=ds,DC=leeds,DC=ac,D > C=uk"; > private static final String admin_password = "myADpass"; > private static final String search_base = > "ou=Staff,DC=ds,DC=leeds,DC=ac,DC=uk"; > private static final String search_user = "myusername"; > private static final String search_password = "mypassword"; > private static final String search_server = "ds.leeds.ac.uk"; > > > D:\eclipse\workspace\ADDebug>java -classpath > build;lib/ldap.jar;lib/log4j.jar ADDebug > > Starting > 0 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000001 Found by user name. > 10 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000001 Authentication OK > 1113 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000002 Found by user name. > 1113 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000002 Authentication OK > 2166 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000003 Found by user name. > 2166 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000003 Authentication OK > 3209 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000004 Found by user name. > 3209 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000004 Authentication OK > 4262 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000005 Found by user name. > 4262 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000005 Authentication OK > 5316 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000006 Found by user name. > 5316 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000006 Authentication OK > 6369 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000007 Found by user name. > 6369 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000007 Authentication OK > 7422 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000008 Found by user name. > 7422 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000008 Authentication OK > 8475 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000009 Found by user name. > 8475 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000009 Authentication OK > 9518 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000a Found by user name. > 9518 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000a Authentication OK > 10571 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000b Found by user name. > 10571 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000b Authentication OK > 11625 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000c Found by user name. > 11625 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000c Authentication OK > 12668 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000d Found by user name. > 12668 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000d Authentication OK > 13721 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000e Found by user name. > 13731 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000e Authentication OK > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bod...@li... > [mailto:bod...@li...] On > Behalf Of > Sean Mehan > Sent: 01 August 2006 13:17 > To: Bodington developers > Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games > > aggie, can you verify these test results? > > s > > > On 1 Aug 2006, at 13:10, Jon Maber wrote: > >> Alistair Young wrote: >>>> I still feel a switch to JNDI is needed >>>> >>> I don't see why. We've run the openLDAP api against AD, openLDAP and >>> eDirectory for 2 years now without any problems. It doesn't work on >>> your laptop. Is that a reason to change everything? I don't think >>> so. >>> >> Run the test, see the errors, tell me I'm wrong then. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> --- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to >> share your >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn >> cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? >> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn > cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn > cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Andrew B. <a.g...@le...> - 2006-08-01 14:26:32
|
It works for me:
private static final String admin_dn =
"cn=myADusername,ou=fbs,ou=users,ou=bio,ou=temp,DC=ds,DC=leeds,DC=ac,DC=uk";
private static final String admin_password = "myADpass";
private static final String search_base =
"ou=Staff,DC=ds,DC=leeds,DC=ac,DC=uk";
private static final String search_user = "myusername";
private static final String search_password = "mypassword";
private static final String search_server = "ds.leeds.ac.uk";
D:\eclipse\workspace\ADDebug>java -classpath
build;lib/ldap.jar;lib/log4j.jar ADDebug
Starting
0 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000001 Found by user name.
10 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000001 Authentication OK
1113 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000002 Found by user name.
1113 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000002 Authentication OK
2166 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000003 Found by user name.
2166 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000003 Authentication OK
3209 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000004 Found by user name.
3209 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000004 Authentication OK
4262 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000005 Found by user name.
4262 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000005 Authentication OK
5316 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000006 Found by user name.
5316 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000006 Authentication OK
6369 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000007 Found by user name.
6369 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000007 Authentication OK
7422 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000008 Found by user name.
7422 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000008 Authentication OK
8475 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000009 Found by user name.
8475 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000009 Authentication OK
9518 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000a Found by user name.
9518 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000a Authentication OK
10571 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000b Found by user name.
10571 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000b Authentication OK
11625 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000c Found by user name.
11625 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000c Authentication OK
12668 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000d Found by user name.
12668 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000d Authentication OK
13721 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000e Found by user name.
13731 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000e Authentication OK
-----Original Message-----
From: bod...@li...
[mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of
Sean Mehan
Sent: 01 August 2006 13:17
To: Bodington developers
Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] More LDAP Fun and Games
aggie, can you verify these test results?
s
On 1 Aug 2006, at 13:10, Jon Maber wrote:
> Alistair Young wrote:
>>> I still feel a switch to JNDI is needed
>>>
>> I don't see why. We've run the openLDAP api against AD, openLDAP and
>> eDirectory for 2 years now without any problems. It doesn't work on
>> your laptop. Is that a reason to change everything? I don't think so.
>>
> Run the test, see the errors, tell me I'm wrong then.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to
> share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn
> cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?
> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Bodington-developers mailing list
> Bod...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Bodington-developers mailing list
Bod...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers
|
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-08-01 13:22:01
|
I tested it against our institutional eDirectory and our institutional ActiveDirectory which runs our Citrix thin client project. These are institutional-grade identity systems, managed by admins, not an AD running on a laptop. The only change I made was to enable referrals. I ran the test code on a Mac and 3 linux boxes. All passed: Starting 0 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000001 Found by user name. 5 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000001 Authentication OK 1124 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000002 Found by user name. 1125 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000002 Authentication OK 2241 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000003 Found by user name. 2242 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000003 Authentication OK 3352 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000004 Found by user name. 3354 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000004 Authentication OK 4476 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000005 Found by user name. 4477 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000005 Authentication OK 5594 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000006 Found by user name. 5595 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000006 Authentication OK 6708 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000007 Found by user name. 6709 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000007 Authentication OK 7816 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000008 Found by user name. 7817 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000008 Authentication OK 8925 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000009 Found by user name. 8926 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000009 Authentication OK 10060 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000a Found by user name. 10080 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000a Authentication OK 11201 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000b Found by user name. 11202 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000b Authentication OK 12308 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000c Found by user name. 12309 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000c Authentication OK 13417 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000d Found by user name. 13419 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000d Authentication OK 14555 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000e Found by user name. 14556 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000e Authentication OK 15666 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000f Found by user name. 15667 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 1000000f Authentication OK 16773 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000010 Found by user name. 16774 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000010 Authentication OK 17884 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000011 Found by user name. 17885 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000011 Authentication OK 18992 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000012 Found by user name. 18993 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000012 Authentication OK 20122 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000013 Found by user name. 20123 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000013 Authentication OK 21234 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000014 Found by user name. 21235 [main] DEBUG ADDebug - 10000014 Authentication OK Process finished with exit code 0 now you have to find out why your laptop doesn't work. The case for JNDI hasn't been made. > tell me I'm wrong then ok, you're wrong ;) Alistair On 1 Aug 2006, at 13:10, Jon Maber wrote: > Alistair Young wrote: >>> I still feel a switch to JNDI is needed >>> >> I don't see why. We've run the openLDAP api against AD, openLDAP and >> eDirectory for 2 years now without any problems. It doesn't work on >> your laptop. Is that a reason to change everything? I don't think so. >> > Run the test, see the errors, tell me I'm wrong then. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn > cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-08-01 12:17:09
|
aggie, can you verify these test results? s On 1 Aug 2006, at 13:10, Jon Maber wrote: > Alistair Young wrote: >>> I still feel a switch to JNDI is needed >>> >> I don't see why. We've run the openLDAP api against AD, openLDAP and >> eDirectory for 2 years now without any problems. It doesn't work on >> your laptop. Is that a reason to change everything? I don't think so. >> > Run the test, see the errors, tell me I'm wrong then. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn > cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-08-01 12:10:22
|
Alistair Young wrote: >> I still feel a switch to JNDI is needed >> > I don't see why. We've run the openLDAP api against AD, openLDAP and > eDirectory for 2 years now without any problems. It doesn't work on > your laptop. Is that a reason to change everything? I don't think so. > Run the test, see the errors, tell me I'm wrong then. |
|
From: Adam M. <ada...@co...> - 2006-08-01 11:45:30
|
-----Original Message----- From: Randy Metcalfe via RT [mailto:oss...@rt...] Sent: 01 August 2006 12:20 To: ada...@ou... Subject: Re: [rt.oucs.ox.ac.uk #983489] OSS VLEs &Bb patent Hi Adam, (Glad to see that your inquiry has finally made to our RT queue :-) ) Obviously this is a cause for concern, even if Blackboard's patent pending in the European Union fails at the outset. Many of the larger open source VLE projects are based in countries where such a patent application might be successful (initially) and that will have ramifications on all such development work no matter where it is located. The full implications will take time to evaluate. Rowan is better placed to give an initial assessment of the patent itself as I know he has been giving it a close read. But the real issue probably turns on whether the patent can be overturned on a 'prior art' argument, or whether Blackboard will treat this as merely a defensive patent, in much the way IBM and others do with much of their patent portfolio. The latter already appears not to be the case as, I believe, suit has been filed against Desire2Learn. The former is still up in the air. I know that the leaders of other open source VLE projects are currently gathering whatever data they can in case a prior art case needs to be launched. In the short term, I would recommend that Bodington do that as well. Meanwhile OSS Watch will be following this development closely and will let you know as and when we have further information or further thoughts on the implications. If you were wondering whether this is a one-off, you'll find it isn't. Blackboard has a great of number of patents pending. http://v3.espacenet.com/results?sf=a&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPODOC&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&P R=&PD=&PA=blackboard Best wishes, Randy -- Randy Metcalfe Research Technologies Service OSS Watch University of Oxford 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN t. +44 (0) 1865 283416 http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/ Adam Marshall via RT wrote: > <URL: https://rt.oucs.ox.ac.uk/Ticket/Display.html?id=983489 > > > Now that Bodington is OSS (or at least will be with the next release > in a week or so), could OSS Watch give their view on the > implications of Blackboard's patent: > http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1192615 ? > > adam > > > |
|
From: Matthew B. <mat...@ou...> - 2006-08-01 10:48:46
|
Matthew Buckett wrote: > Not going in now but attached is a cleanup of modify.html that was done > with Weblearn in mind but applies to Bodington as well. I little cleanup > of the Javascript is needed (better class attribute processing). > > It addresses: - I also have the textboxes the full width of the browser now as we don't have any text to the right of them. -- -- Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer -- Learning Technologies Group, Oxford University Computing Services -- Tel: +44 (0)1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/ |
19 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
