On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
 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:

->    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.

I think all server/services even NTP and HTTP will have their configurations backed in the DIT. So the relation holds.

Great idea Stefan! 

Alex Karasulu
My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org
To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu