On 3/15/07, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Enrique Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok so you basically have this LDAPConfiguration bean contained under the
> > ServerStartupConfiguration?  Meaning I would get and
set the
> > LDAPConfiguration bean on the ServerStartupConfiguration?
>
> I wouldn't put it under the ServerStartupConfiguration.  No point to,
> other than lashing two classes together.

Then the user has to use another call to the spring factory thingy to get
this bean by name again.  Instead of having a centrally rooted configuration
heirarchy.

OK, there is an extra call.  If we agree on the LdapConfiguration
bean, then whether it is under the StartupConfig or not doesn't matter
to me.

> Instead, the
> LdapConfiguration is read via Spring in server-main Service and used
> in the ServerContextFactory to start the LDAP protocol providers for
> LDAP and LDAPS.

How does this effect the daemon bootstrappers?  Will the daemon code work
the same?

Yeah, I have it working.  Works identically.

> The issue will be keeping
> protocol config consistent with the other 4 protocols we have.

Hmmm I agree with the concept but I don't like this outcome.  Perhaps I
just need to see the mechanics of it.

ServerStartupConfiguration is not just for LDAP but for all the services in
the
server.

It's a minor point; they can all go under ServerStartupConfig.

> > Can you elaborate a tiny bit more on the configuration changes in the
doco
> > just so there are no questions?
>
> Elaborate as to what, specifically?

Just verbally put down what you've changed.  A summary of it.  What was.
What's different now instead of just a configuration snippet.  Others
looking at this doco will not have a clue right?  Think with the perspective
of someone new trying to dive in and get involved.  Provide enough context
so they understand what you did.

Makes sense?  You're leaving a trail this way so others can follow what's
going on and how we got there.

Gotcha.  "Elaborate" was just a little broad.

Enrique

Reply via email to