Hi Kiran, On 23 oct. 2012, at 12:05, Kiran Ayyagari <[email protected]> wrote:
> yeap, like we just discussed, we can certainly do that, the two things > that immediately come to my mind are > > 1. the impact of such a change in the code It can be important, I haven't checked yet. > 2. and the number of existing installations that will break because of > this change These are the exact number of existing installations that are going to break when going from server.xml to config.ldif. 1.5.x and 2.x installation will never be upgradable out of the box. Since we breaking things, let's be consistent and try to gather all the configuration in a single location. Software is about change. We would never go beyond the 1.0 mark if everything was set in stone forever. Regards, Pierre-Arnaud > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I will rephrase Pierre-Arnaud's mail (should we remove the pu=system >> partition). >> >> The main issue is that the uid=admin entry, which is used all over the >> server to manage it, is stored in the ou=system partition, when it should >> probably be stored in the ou=configuration partition. >> >> The consequences is that we can't modify the password with Studio when the >> server has not been started a first time, when Studio already has the plugin >> to manage the configuration even if the server is not started. >> >> IMO, the uid=admin entry should be moved to the ou=configuration partition. >> >> thoughts ? >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Cordialement, >> Emmanuel Lécharny >> www.iktek.com >> > > > > -- > Kiran Ayyagari > http://keydap.com
