directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Apache DS] Questions about Apache DS 1.5.2 server.xml file
Date Thu, 15 May 2008 10:22:14 GMT
Hey Emmanuel,

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org>
wrote:

> Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>
>> Hi again Alex,
>>
>> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org<mailto:
>> akarasulu@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>        • It seems that each declared protocol must be referenced in
>>        the 'apacheDS' bean. Am I right?
>>        If yes, then if I want to enable the DNS server inside Apache
>>        DS, I'll need to uncomment the 'dnsServer' bean, add an 'id'
>>        to it and reference it in the 'apacheDS' bean?
>>
>>
>>    Yep you're right.
>>
>>
>> Are you sure about that...?
>> Actually, I had a closer look to the ApacheDS class
>> (org.apache.directory.server.configuration.ApacheDS) and I've not seen any
>> dnsServer, kdcServer, changePasswordServer or ntpServer field. I don't see
>> how Spring could make any association...
>> How do I enable these protocols? Maybe by setting an 'enable' attribute
>> set to true to each protocol bean?
>>
> The problem since we "adopted" the xbean+Spring stuff is now pretty
> apparent. These two things gathered just plain sucks.
>
> We definitively have to step back a little, and come back to some srrious -
> although boring - solution. What we have is silly, painfull, error-prone,
> and make the users wondering if we are simply trying to have fun endorsing
> the latest funny buzz around there.
>
> <rant>
> I already ranted about this xbean+spring stuff, but now, I consider that
> was not rant. I was soft. This couple will just produce monsters, not
> babies... We must practice abortion asap, and keep the parent either
> separated or killed !!!
> </rant>
>
> Seriously, we can't keep this situation as is for 2.0.


I'd love to whip together the CiDIT stuff.  Follows the same pattern that
OpenLDAP and FedoraDS folks are using with their back-config stuff.  With
smart defaults and an LDIF based partition we could load the configuration
into the DIT.  It's easy but labor intensive.

It's just a matter of time.   Definitely something to consider.

Alex

Mime
View raw message