directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot ...@marcelot.net>
Subject Re: Configuration again ...
Date Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:48:16 GMT
Definitely +1

Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud

On 15 oct. 2010, at 10:48, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:

> 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