On 10/13/10 9:22 AM, Kiran Ayyagari wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi guys,
as I was writing the configuration documentation, based on the way we
initialize the server, I went through the objectClasses we use to define the
configuration for each element. That raised a question in my mind :
- why don't we link the elements together ?
to simply put it it makes creating any new configuration element
a bottom-up approach rather than top-down, for ex.
to configure an LdapServer instance, the user needs to define
its containments like transports, extended handlers and sasl mechanisms first
and then take these DNs and add them to the LdapServer config entry for linking.
(the other approch is to add some non-existing DNs first and later remove it)
You aren't forced to define any of the containments if you don't want
to. Just put nothing in the DN referencing sub-elements.
The thing is that in order to have a LDAPServer working, you *have* to
define all the sub-elements anyway...
IMHO, I find this really complex, OTOH using this 'linking option'
user *might* spread
the config across the partition instead of under a single container
I see your point. But the pointers may also help to grab the entries (no
need to do a search, a lookup will be just enough). Plus note that DSR
(once we have implemented it) may force the elements to be stored one
level under their container. At least, this would be explicit, instead
of being coded.
Right now, we expect some code to put the glue between those elements (ie
teh LdapServer OC does not contain any AT defining the DS to use, the DS
does not contain the list of Partitions it uses, etc).
I would see it this way, it actually enforces a configuration policy that
any configurable container(e.x DS, LdapServer etc) object's
configuration should be present
*in* and *under* the associated container ldap entry
so all the configuration related to DS will be in and under the entry with DN
ads-directoryServiceId=default,ou=config
the way we find where the DS is configured is search for
(ads-directoryServiceId=default)
at ONE level scope and we know that the entire configuration related
to DS is present
in and under this returned entry
DSR is the way to go, IMO. But maybe we don't need the links. It 's just
that we may be able to generate the accessor automatically from the
entries if we have the links, when we have to do that by hand without them.
Wouldn't it be better
to add some AT in each elements to completely define, say, the LdapServer
configuration from the LdapServer entry, following the contained ATs ?
IMHO, I don't think so
Better, not better, I would say easier instead. Again, from the code
generation of the accessors POV.
One more thing : we should probably define an Abstract ads-oc OC containing
the 'description' and 'ads-enabled' elements, which are present in all the
OCs ? I propose such an OC to handle those informations :
*A[ads-base]
m-may: description
m-may: ads-enabled
+1, this will really make the config more concise and we can add other
common ATs that
we are talking about like 'comment' that will allow users to add some
comments in the config
elements
I will add this guy.
I have gathered all the existing OC with there MAY and MUST ATs, and listed
them here. The A[xxx] notation describes an ABSTRACT OC. The --> notation
defines a hierarchical relation between 2 OCs (ie OC2 --> OC1 means that OC1
is the SUP in OC2). The * notation means that we may have from 0 to N
distinguishedName in an AT. The ATs pointing to other ads OCs are also
noted.
With a little effort, I also think that reading such a hierarchy, we could
automatically generate the beans using introspection, instead of writing a
reader for each of those elements.
didn't understand completely, but, we need a reader to instantiate the beans
and we can also introspect based on the OCs and hierarchy rather than
the linked ATs
Using the OCs, we can generate the Beans (we would need a maven plugin
for that, not sure it's usefull...) and the reader (probably more useful).
I would at least say that we should let the reader instanciates the
beans associated with each Entry automatically using introspection. For
instance, the OC ads-base will be associate with an AdsBase java class,
containing two fields :
- String description
- boolean adsEnabled
when we read an Entry which has the ads-base SUP OC, we can call the
setter for those both fields using the MAY or MUST name :
- may: ads-enabled -> setAdsEnabled()
- may: description -> setDescription()
Then you don't need to write readXXX( DN ) methods at all, this can be
completely automatic.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
