Hi Martin, Thanks a lot! I completely understand the configuration now.
About the peerReplicas property, you're right and I'm not sure either the given example would work. Did anyone tested it? But I think we can mix xbean and spring syntaxes to get something that will work and could look like: > <replicationInterceptor> > <configuration> > <replicationConfiguration serverPort="10390"> > <spring:property name="peerReplicas"> > <spring:set> > <spring:value xmlns=" > http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:10392 > </spring:value> > </spring:set> > </spring:property> > <replicaId> > <replicaId id="instance_a"/> > </replicaId> > </replicationConfiguration> > </configuration> > </replicationInterceptor> > Thanks again, Pierre-Arnaud On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Martin Alderson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Pierre, > > I haven't tried the new xbean form of the replication configuration - > I'm not really sure if anyone has! > > I'm not sure if peerReplicas="[EMAIL PROTECTED]:10392" will work, > since peerReplicas is actually a set. In my old style config I have: > > <property name="peerReplicas"> > <set> > <value>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:11390</value> > </set> > </property> > > Each ApacheDS replica needs to be given a unique and permanent case > insensitive ID. It should never change for a given ApacheDS instance > unless the backend data is wiped out (effectively giving you a fresh > install). I think that in the future we would want to make this > auto-generated by default to simplify the configuration. The replica ID > in your snippet is instance_a - the rest is just necessary cruft that we > should cut down in the future. The replica ID must match the regular > expression [-_a-zA-Z0-9]{1,16}. > > The replication service listens on the port specified with "serverPort" > for connections from other replicas. All the other replicas must be > specified with "peerReplicas". Each peer replica is specified with > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[serverPort]. > > Hope this helps, > > Martin > > > >>> "Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 16/05/2008 13:37 >>> > Hi Alex, > > Thanks for your answers. > > Another question... > > I'd like the configuration editor to be able to edit basic replication > settings for the replication interceptor. > Can I get a little explanation on what these lines doplease? > > > <replicationInterceptor> > > <configuration> > > <replicationConfiguration serverPort="10390" > > peerReplicas="[EMAIL PROTECTED]:10392"> > > <replicaId> > > <replicaId id="instance_a"/> > > </replicaId> > > </replicationConfiguration> > > </configuration> > > </replicationInterceptor> > > > Especially the serverPort, peerReplicas, replacaId attributes or > tag... > > Thanks a lot. > > Pierre-Arnaud > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hey Pierre, > > > > Sorry for taking so long to respond on this one. > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi again Alex, > >> > >> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Alex Karasulu > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> ● It seems that each declared protocol must be referenced in the > >>>> 'apacheDS' bean. Am I right? > >>>> If yes, then if I want to enable the DNS server inside Apache DS, > I'll > >>>> need to uncomment the 'dnsServer' bean, add an 'id' to it and > reference it > >>>> in the 'apacheDS' bean? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yep you're right. > >> > >> > >> Are you sure about that...? > >> Actually, I had a closer look to the ApacheDS class > >> (org.apache.directory.server.configuration.ApacheDS) and I've not > seen any > >> dnsServer, kdcServer, changePasswordServer or ntpServer field. I > don't see > >> how Spring could make any association... > >> > > > > Yeah it was there before. I may have an older version in mind. > That's > > where we should keep a reference to all these protocol > server/services. > > Must have changed when we did this XBean thing. > > > > > >> How do I enable these protocols? Maybe by setting an 'enable' > attribute > >> set to true to each protocol bean? > >> > >> I think so but I'd need to look at the code. I think there's a > start > > method but it only gets or shoudl only get invoked or startup the > service > > when this enabled flag is set. I'd need to look at the logic there. > > > > Alex > > >
