On 10/15/10 10:29 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected]> wrote:
So I'm continuing playing with many concepts, and having some kind of fun
with the new configuration system. However, that raises some interesting
questions.
2) Relations between component and storage
If we consider a LdpaServer, the following relations are obvious :
LdapServer
-> DirectoryService
-> Partitions
-> Indexes
-> Journal
-> ChangeLog
-> Transports
-> Replication consumer
-> Transport
-> Replication provider
-> Transport
I wonder if another hierarchy (DIT structure) makes more sense:
DirectoryService
-> Partitions
-> Indexes
-> Journal
-> Changelog
-> Servers
-> LdapServer
-> Transports
-> Replication consumer
-> Replication provider
-> KerberosServer
-> ...
This way it should also be possible to define multiple directory
services with their own servers.
This is an option. It reverts the logic we currently have in place, but
it's smart, assuming it covers both concerns we have :
- with such a hierarchy, we allow someone to define 2 servers having 2
different DS
- we also have all the elements cleanly linked together.
I +1 this proposal !
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
