UnboundID version

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

UnboundID version

Dan McLaughlin
Is there a reason you are using such old versions of the
unboundid-ldapsdk and ldaptive-unboundid in the 3.4.6 IDP release?
Are there known issues with the latest versions?

--

Thanks,

Dan
--
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UnboundID version

Cantor, Scott E.
On 10/11/19, 10:48 AM, "dev on behalf of Dan McLaughlin" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

> Is there a reason you are using such old versions of the
> unboundid-ldapsdk and ldaptive-unboundid in the 3.4.6 IDP release?
> Are there known issues with the latest versions?

I don't recall using an "old" version of unboundid itself, but the ldaptive version is what was shipped with 3.0.0 and our API policy does not permit anything else until at least 4.0.0 unless there are security justifications.

-- Scott


--
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UnboundID version

Dan McLaughlin
We are testing moving to 3.4.6 today to check if the binary attribute
fix works. We build the war because the version you publish to Maven
doesn't include all the jars necessary for UnboundID to work, and when
I was updating the pom's I noticed there were newer versions of both.
If there were known issues using the newer versions then I wasn't
going to update them.

For unboundid-ldapsdk you're using 4.0.9 which is from last year,
4.0.12 is the latest version and includes memory leak fixes.  For
ldaptive-unboundid you're using 1.0.13 released last year, the latest
is 1.2.4.

https://www.ldaptive.org/changelog.html

https://github.com/pingidentity/ldapsdk/releases

--

Thanks,

Dan

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:51 AM Cantor, Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 10/11/19, 10:48 AM, "dev on behalf of Dan McLaughlin" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Is there a reason you are using such old versions of the
> > unboundid-ldapsdk and ldaptive-unboundid in the 3.4.6 IDP release?
> > Are there known issues with the latest versions?
>
> I don't recall using an "old" version of unboundid itself, but the ldaptive version is what was shipped with 3.0.0 and our API policy does not permit anything else until at least 4.0.0 unless there are security justifications.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to [hidden email]
--
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UnboundID version

Cantor, Scott E.
On 10/11/19, 11:18 AM, "dev on behalf of Dan McLaughlin" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

> For unboundid-ldapsdk you're using 4.0.9 which is from last year,
> 4.0.12 is the latest version and includes memory leak fixes.

We don't generally update dependencies in patch releases unless there are security issues but unboundid is relatively recently added and I hadn't paid real close attention (not to mention it's not the default yet). Moving to that wouldn't likely be any trouble if desired.

>  For ldaptive-unboundid you're using 1.0.13 released last year, the latest is 1.2.4.

Which we cannot move to and would break your system. That would require updating ldaptive itself, and that won't work.

-- Scott


--
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UnboundID version

Dan McLaughlin
I'm happy to report that 3.4.6 worked seamlessly with 4.0.12
unboundid-ldapsdk and the binary attribute works now.   The only
change to our ldap.properties was to add
idp.ldaptive.provider=org.ldaptive.provider.unboundid.UnboundIDProvider.
Thanks for getting this fixed!  I won't know if it solves the LDAP
connection leak until later this week.

--

Thanks,

Dan

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM Cantor, Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 10/11/19, 11:18 AM, "dev on behalf of Dan McLaughlin" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > For unboundid-ldapsdk you're using 4.0.9 which is from last year,
> > 4.0.12 is the latest version and includes memory leak fixes.
>
> We don't generally update dependencies in patch releases unless there are security issues but unboundid is relatively recently added and I hadn't paid real close attention (not to mention it's not the default yet). Moving to that wouldn't likely be any trouble if desired.
>
> >  For ldaptive-unboundid you're using 1.0.13 released last year, the latest is 1.2.4.
>
> Which we cannot move to and would break your system. That would require updating ldaptive itself, and that won't work.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to [hidden email]
--
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UnboundID version

Cantor, Scott E.
On 10/11/19, 2:34 PM, "Dan McLaughlin" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm happy to report that 3.4.6 worked seamlessly with 4.0.12
> unboundid-ldapsdk and the binary attribute works now.

Just be aware that all our testing is solely with the jars we ship, so that's technically not a supported version at this point. I will bump the dependency for 4.0 today so we get it tested.

-- Scott


--
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to [hidden email]