directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Configuration again ...
Date Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:48:11 GMT
  On 10/15/10 10:29 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecharny@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>   So I'm continuing playing with many concepts, and having some kind of fun
>> with the new configuration system. However, that raises some interesting
>> questions.
>> 2) Relations between component and storage
>> If we consider a LdpaServer, the following relations are obvious :
>> LdapServer
>>   ->  DirectoryService
>>       ->  Partitions
>>           ->  Indexes
>>       ->  Journal
>>       ->  ChangeLog
>>   ->  Transports
>>   ->  Replication consumer
>>       ->  Transport
>>   ->  Replication provider
>>       ->  Transport
> I wonder if another hierarchy (DIT structure) makes more sense:
>
> DirectoryService
> ->  Partitions
>      ->  Indexes
> ->  Journal
> ->  Changelog
> ->  Servers
>      ->  LdapServer
>          ->  Transports
>          ->  Replication consumer
>          ->  Replication provider
>      ->  KerberosServer
>      ->  ...
>
> This way it should also be possible to define multiple directory
> services with their own servers.

This is an option. It reverts the logic we currently have in place, but 
it's smart, assuming it covers both concerns we have :
- with such a hierarchy, we allow someone to define 2 servers having 2 
different DS
- we also have all the elements cleanly linked together.

I +1 this proposal !

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny
www.iktek.com


Mime
View raw message