directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1050378 - /directory/apacheds/trunk/server-config/src/main/resources/config.ldif
Date Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:00:03 GMT
Hi Antoine,

I only added it for consistency with other entries in the configuration and for the following
reason, mention by Emmanuel in the previous thread "Adding annotations to Configuration beans":

Begin forwarded message:
> On 12/6/10 6:00 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>> On 6 déc. 2010, at 17:32, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>> Also as Kiran pointed out in his response, what if the contained elements are
kept in a single attribute like this ads-compositeElement ?
>> AFAIR, the 'ads-compositeElement' was introduced as kind of "quick hack" to ease
the work on the reader class. I really think we can get rid of it easily with the annotation
> ads-compositeElement has been created at the origin as a way to tell the reader that
the element is a composite element. The reader was supposed to be completely generic, ie the
java Beans could have been generated automatically (except that because it requires the development
of a maven plugin, something I didn't want to do).
> Now that you have defined some @, sure this is redondant, but if someone decide to define
a reader/writer in another language, then this element is probably necessary.

That said, I 100% agree on the fact that this attribute is redundant and somehow unnecessary.

I still think it should be removed for an easier (hand) writing of the configuration.
Also, looks like the ConfigReader does not need it in its current implementation, as all objects
were perfectly instantiated before my fix on the file.

Maybe it's time to take a community-wide decision about these types of attributes (attributes
extending 'ads-compositeElement').


On 17 déc. 2010, at 15:31, Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:

> Hello Pierre-Alain,
> is this change needed ?
> I would think that these attributes are only needed when you are dealing with for instance
a multi-valued string.
> But this is a list contained in a subentry ou=authenticators
> So I think that this ads-authenticators attribute is not required.
> And  it is redundant with the other items below.
> Regards,
> Antoine
> On 12/17/2010 8:32 AM, wrote:
>> Author: pamarcelot
>> Date: Fri Dec 17 13:32:30 2010
>> New Revision: 1050378
>> URL:
>> Log:
>> Added missing attribute 'ads-authenticators'.
>> Modified:
>>     directory/apacheds/trunk/server-config/src/main/resources/config.ldif
>> Modified: directory/apacheds/trunk/server-config/src/main/resources/config.ldif
>> URL:
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- directory/apacheds/trunk/server-config/src/main/resources/config.ldif (original)
>> +++ directory/apacheds/trunk/server-config/src/main/resources/config.ldif Fri Dec
17 13:32:30 2010
>> @@ -78,6 +78,9 @@ ads-interceptororder: 2
>>  ads-interceptorclassname:
>>  ads-interceptorid: authenticationInterceptor
>>  ads-enabled: TRUE
>> +ads-authenticators: anonymousauthenticator
>> +ads-authenticators: simpleauthenticator
>> +ads-authenticators: strongauthenticator
>>  dn: ou=authenticators,ads-interceptorId=authenticationInterceptor,ou=interceptors,ads-directoryServiceId=default,ou=config
>>  ou: authenticators

View raw message