Definitely +1 Regards, Pierre-Arnaud
On 15 oct. 2010, at 10:48, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > 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 >
