directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Enrique Rodriguez" <>
Subject Re: [SASL] SASL configuration, part 2
Date Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:38:18 GMT
On 3/15/07, Alex Karasulu <> wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Enrique Rodriguez <> wrote:
> > On 3/15/07, Alex Karasulu <> wrote:
> > > Ok so you basically have this LDAPConfiguration bean contained under the
> > > ServerStartupConfiguration?  Meaning I would get and
> set the
> > > LDAPConfiguration bean on the ServerStartupConfiguration?
> >
> > I wouldn't put it under the ServerStartupConfiguration.  No point to,
> > other than lashing two classes together.
> Then the user has to use another call to the spring factory thingy to get
> this bean by name again.  Instead of having a centrally rooted configuration
> heirarchy.

OK, there is an extra call.  If we agree on the LdapConfiguration
bean, then whether it is under the StartupConfig or not doesn't matter
to me.

> > Instead, the
> > LdapConfiguration is read via Spring in server-main Service and used
> > in the ServerContextFactory to start the LDAP protocol providers for
> > LDAP and LDAPS.
> How does this effect the daemon bootstrappers?  Will the daemon code work
> the same?

Yeah, I have it working.  Works identically.

> > The issue will be keeping
> > protocol config consistent with the other 4 protocols we have.
> Hmmm I agree with the concept but I don't like this outcome.  Perhaps I
> just need to see the mechanics of it.
> ServerStartupConfiguration is not just for LDAP but for all the services in
> the
> server.

It's a minor point; they can all go under ServerStartupConfig.

> > > Can you elaborate a tiny bit more on the configuration changes in the
> doco
> > > just so there are no questions?
> >
> > Elaborate as to what, specifically?
> Just verbally put down what you've changed.  A summary of it.  What was.
> What's different now instead of just a configuration snippet.  Others
> looking at this doco will not have a clue right?  Think with the perspective
> of someone new trying to dive in and get involved.  Provide enough context
> so they understand what you did.
> Makes sense?  You're leaving a trail this way so others can follow what's
> going on and how we got there.

Gotcha.  "Elaborate" was just a little broad.


View raw message