On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/15/10 10:50 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 10/15/10 10:29 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> One issue is that not all servers (only NTP atm?) have a relationship >> to the directory service. But I think the main purpose of ApacheDS is >> to provide services the need a hierarchical data store underneath. > > Yes, NTP has no relation with the DS, except that it's only needed by the > KerberosServer. The other server which has no relation with DS is > HtppServer, but as it's a server used to have a HTTP connection with the DS, > it's somehow related. it is indeed deeply related when we have web app deployed which work based on the DS data (e.x a DSML or JSON gateway) > > So at the end, I still think that it's all about DS on top, and all the > server under. > > > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > >
-- Kiran Ayyagari
