> masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote: >>> Am Freitag 26 Februar 2010 13:30:55 schrieb masar...@aero.polimi.it: >>> Returning an error just for the LDAPSync related Search seemed more >>> logical to me. >> >> In any case, (ab)using an existing error code might not be optimal. as >> a >> consequence of removing slapo-syncprov(5), any consumer using it needs >> to >> be clearly informed that just retrying later is probably not an option. >> On the contrary, returning a dedicated error would allow to exactly >> inform >> the consumer about what it can expect from the (former) producer, and >> possibly to suggest a strategy (e.g. the message could contain a hint >> about some substitute producer, or so). > > This situation is no different than pointing a consumer at a server that > has > no provider configured. We don't do anything special for that case; I > don't > believe anything special is called for here.
Well, I believe it's not exactly identical. If you point a consumer to a DSA that's not a producer, sync replication cannot initiate. If you point a consumer to a DSA that's a producer, and eventually ceases to be a producer, the consumer could take advantage of being informed that it's pointless to keep retrying an "unwilling to perform" that could be interpreted as a temporary failure. But I don't want to make a point of it, as it would probably take us too far from the initial objective... p.
