directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reducing the complexity/verbosity of default server.xml (and custom configuration files)
Date Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:29:47 GMT
Well, my position is a little bit different. Sure, too much XML suX(ml), 
but the problem is not that the configuration is huge, it's that we 
currently don't have tools to manage that (tools = GUI).

But with LdapStudio, I think we might have an acceptable solution :
- users who like to click will use it
- users who prefer vi and long text file will favor xml files :)

However, there are so much things in the server.xml file which could be 
defaulted, that it might be a good idea to spend some time on this 
subject. I don't really see the point of having all the intercptors 
exhibited here. Maybe we can default those guys...

<snip/>

David Jencks a écrit :

> I think James Strachan and Dain Sundstrom have cooked up some stuff  
> that automatically generates schemas for each bean and then lets you  
> use that customized xml for your spring configuration.  It's  
> somewhere in the xbean project inside geronimo.  I'll try to find out  
> more if there's interest.  I'm pretty sure  activeMQ is using this  
> for its configuration.  From what I've heard its a big improvement  
> over normal spring configuration.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jan 9, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Stefan Zoerner wrote:
>
>> Hi all!
>>
>> There is some criticism about configuration complexity of ApacheDS,  
>> especially from people who argue after a first glance at it. The  
>> verbosity is mostly driven by the Spring Framework.
>>
>> 2) Reduce length of partition configuration
>>
>> Currently, partition configuration are very long, mostly because of  
>> the many many indices for internal attributes:
>> ...
>>         <bean  
>> class="org.apache.directory.server.core.partition.impl.btree.MutableIn 
>> dexConfiguration">
>>           <property  
>> name="attributeId"><value>1.3.6.1.4.1.18060.0.4.1.2.1</value></

>> property>
>>           <property name="cacheSize"><value>100</value></property>
>>         </bean>
>> (many others follow, in each partition the same
>> ...
>>
>> If it is highly recommend to use these indices, how about having a  
>> special IndexConfiguration as a default, which only has to be  
>> extended in order to adjust it to your needs?
>
yeah, sure, good point.

Stefan, can you do a list of all the elements that could be defaulted ?

Emmanuel

Mime
View raw message