directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: Questionning some parts of the configuration, proposal
Date Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:23:51 GMT
Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>> 3) LdapService
>> This class is now used only once in the ApacheDS class, as we don't need
>> to define one instance to manage LDAP and another one for LDAPS : both
>> are managed through a different transport. As a consequence, a flag is
>> removed (enableSSL) : this flag depends on the SSL enabled transport
>> presence.
>> The getPort() method has been completed with a getportSSL() which
>> returns the LDAPS associated transport port. The getPort() now returns
>> the port for the non SSL transport.
> Would be good to rename it to _LdapServer_, just to be consistent to the
> naming of the other servers.

Most certainly. At least, it will be consistent.

Now, did the exact 
opposite move, I have no idea why...
>> 4) ApacheDS
>> This class encapsulated the LdapServer and all the other servers. As a
>> direct consequence of the transports modifcations, I have move dmost of
>> the specific configuration up to the LdapService. The second impact is
>> that we don't need to instanciate twice the LdapService (one for LDAP
>> and anotherone for LDAPS), plus the reference to DirectoryService is now
>> useless, as it's already present in the unique LdapService instance.
> Emmanuel and I just discussed on IRC, it should be possible to get rid
> of the ApacheDS class because it just grouped the LdapServices.
Yop. Will do that.
>> o The LdapService bean has also been slighly modified, so that it can
> LdapServer?
>>  <dnsServer>
>>    <tcpTransports>
>>      <tcpTransport port="8053"/>
>>    </tcpTransports>
>>    <udpTransports>
>>      <udpTransport port="8053"/>
>>    </udpTransports>
>>    <directoryService>#directoryService</directoryService>
>>  </dnsServer>
> This transports configuration looks a bit chatty. A simpler solution
> could be:
> <...Server>
>   <transports>
>     <tcpTransport .../>
>     <udpTransport .../>
>   </transports>
> </...Server>
> Or
> <...Server>
>   <tcpTransport .../>
>   <udpTransport .../>
> </...Server>

Sure ! Will do.

I suggest that we allow both syntax. if a server has only one transport 
(for TCP/UDP), then the second syntax will be used. If a server can have 
more than one syntax, then we will use the first one.

Thanks Stefan !

cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message