directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [SASL] SASL configuration, part 2
Date Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:18:03 GMT
On 3/15/07, Enrique Rodriguez <enriquer9@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/15/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> 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.



> 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?



> > In terms of deps this sounds good.  You have the LDAPConfig bean in the
> > protocol module which the server-jndi module depends on.  So this is
> nice
> > because then the server-jndi can just have the subordinate object under
> the
> > SSConfig bean.
>
> Yes, it inverts the relationship between server-jndi and
> protocol-ldap.  Again, no point to making it a subordinate object of
> ServerStartupConfiguration.  That unnecessarily makes LDAP
> configuration a part of every server.


You mean every service like Kerberos?

How is that?



> 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.



> > If this is correct it sounds good to me.  I looked at the doco too just
> now
> > ... config looks cleaner.  However this bean is under the configuration
> bean
> > in the server.xml file I suspect.  Is this correct?
>
> No.  Totally separate bean.  Again, people may want LDAP (the PP) in
> most cases, but not the other protocols.  So why not make them all
> modular if it is trivial to do so?


Well they can all be modular and separate beans under a single configuration
object.

Just get that configuration once from spring and the rest of the other beans
are available
using getLdapConfiguration or getKerberosConfiguration etc.

What's wrong with this mechanism?



> > 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.

Alex

Mime
View raw message