> That could be a good addition to the annotation though. Not terribly useful except for protocol using TCP and UDP (like kerberos...)
Ok, I will take a look and see if I can contribute a patch for this. One further query on this issue: I've noticed that the ports generated for the LDAP server tend to be fairly random, whereas the ports generated for the KDC server always tend to start at 1024. Is there a reason for this? Ideally the latter would be spread at random as well, to avoid issues with hanging processes on build machines, etc. Colm. On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 28/11/14 16:30, Colm O hEigeartaigh a écrit : > > Thanks for your reply Kiran. > > > > I figured out the problem - the KDCServer annotation was configured with > > two transports (TCP/UDP) which were using separate ports (as both were > > unspecified). Using "super.getKdcServer().getTcpPort" as the port for > > krb5.conf does not work, as it requires the UDP port. > > > > So I got it working by just configuring a single UDP Transport + > > substituting the port given by > > super.getKdcServer().getTransports()[0].getPort() into the krb5.conf. > > > > Is there a way that I am missing to have both TCP + UDP protocols share a > > random port, when configuring a KDCServer via annotations? > > I don't think it's supported. When you specifiy 0 (or -1, I don't > exactly remember), it generates a random port for each transport. > > That could be a good addition to the annotation though. Not terribly > useful except for protocol using TCP and UDP (like kerberos...) > > -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com
