[jcifs] Is the work-around also the answer?

Michael B Allen ioplex at gmail.com
Sun Oct 23 23:50:27 MDT 2011

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Bret Comstock Waldow <bcw1000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is Large, Huge, International Resource Company, and that's not
> going to happen.  Period.
> There is a project in it's early stages to replace this software with
> something else, but I'm not doing that, and it won't happen soon.  Maybe
> next year, but I have my doubts.
> I'm in Support, and I'm maintaining what's there, which will/must work
> 24/7/365 or huge amounts of money are lost.  It WILL continue for months
> or years from now, and no one is going to flip switches like that and
> keep their job - full stop ("period" for you Yanks).

Hi Bret,

Your position is unusual for such a huge and important company. The
solution you are using is weak, does not work well and, most
important, it has not been supported for years. The alternative from
IOPLEX is the correct replacement solution for the JCIFS HTTP Filter.
Knowing how large businesses operate, if your management understood
these facts, I am quite certain that they would authorize you to
pursue the IOPLEX solution as it is functionally a great improvement
over the JCIFS Filter. The IOPLEX solution has very robust failover
capability that can transparently locate alternative domain
controllers or nameservers as necessary. So you should save "huge
amounts of money".

Otherwise, you really are on your own in the scenario. The JCIFS HTTP
Filter is dead code and posts about it here are (normally) just


More information about the jCIFS mailing list