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 09:09:37 GMT
  On 10/15/10 10:50 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecharny@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>   On 10/15/10 10:29 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>>> 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.
> One issue is that not all servers (only NTP atm?) have a relationship
> to the directory service. But I think the main purpose of ApacheDS is
> to provide services the need a hierarchical data store underneath.
Yes, NTP has no relation with the DS, except that it's only needed by 
the KerberosServer. The other server which has no relation with DS is 
HtppServer, but as it's a server used to have a HTTP connection with the 
DS, it's somehow related.

So at the end, I still think that it's all about DS on top, and all the 
server under.



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


Mime
View raw message