Hi guys, I would be very interested (and the users too) to get some page on our wiki explaining how to add a new interceptor in the current chain, using xbeans. I'm trying to figure out how to have the ChangeLog interceptor configured and used by the server, but I must admit I don't have a clue.
Of course, it's not really urgent, but I think we need it before we move to Phase II Thanks a lot ! On 10/10/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In rev 583375 I moved all the non-ldap protocol servers into independent > components and provided 2 NTP implementations as a basis for further > discussion. > > NtpConfiguration illustrates the approach of a single component to configure > both udp and tcp versions of the same protocol. This could trivially be > enhanced with flags to enable/disable the tcp or udp choices. If we decide > on this approach I would rename the class NtpServer. > > server.xml configuration of this looks like: > > <ntpConfiguration ipPort="80123"> > <apacheDs>#apacheDS</apacheDs> > </ntpConfiguration> > > > AbstractNtpServer, TcpNtpServer, and UdpNtpServer illustrate the approach of > a component per protocol version. server.xml configuration of this looks > like: > > <udpNtpConfiguration ipPort="81123"> > <apacheDs>#apacheDS</apacheDs> > </udpNtpConfiguration> > <tcpNtpConfiguration ipPort="81123"> > <apacheDs>#apacheDS</apacheDs> > </tcpNtpConfiguration> > > > I don't have a strong preference between these two approaches and think they > both are equally good components. I think the first, single component > managing both servers, will be easier for our users to understand and > configure, although it might be conceptually slightly less pure. > > Whatever the outcome of this discussion I think the next step, other than > conforming the protocol servers to whatever we decide, is to move the mina > setup code in ApacheDS into a separate component: this would replace the > ApacheDS reference in all these servers. > > thanks > david jencks > > > On Oct 9, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > On 10/9/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > NTP is pretty darn simple and I'm going to code up a couple of > > examples using it so we can better see what we are talking about. > > NTP is simple and one of the reasons why I picked it for the example. Also > as you > say it can be used for a simple experiment to see the impact of what we want > to do > without a massive investment in time. > > On the other hand although NTP is the easiest to understand the same > reasoning may not > apply to the other protocols. Enrique understands these best so he might > have something to share > about it. Knowing that he's not on IRC I made sure he got wind of it by > posting it here. > > > There's an extreme danger here of making a mountain out of a > > molehill :-) > > Well the plan was simple: get rid of the configuration beans and directly > wire up the components. > As I said this was your idea and a damn good one. I just don't want > configuration beans floating > around with one exception here and one exception there. > > Let's set a standard pattern to follow and stick to it. > > Alex > > > -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
