Rein Tollevik wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
> Howard Chu wrote:
>> Since there is currently no support at all, I think it's important to get
>> something usable first, and worry about those other cases later.
> The other alternative, which is much simpler to implement, is just to
> add a suffixmassage/rewrite keyword to the syncrepl config, allowing it
> to pull from a particular remote base and map it to the local base. Then
> it's up to the sysadmin to create a complete cn=config hierarchy
> somewhere else on the master server and let the slaves pick it up. That
> would address all of the issues of differentiation, at the cost of a
> little bit of redundancy on the master.
I'm not too fond of the proposed olcServerMatch, it appears to me to
create a cluttered config database that requires you to match these
attribute values to see the currently active configuration. Should it
be added though, then I would prefer it to be defined as range(s) of
serverIDs rather than a pattern to match. Regexp matching of integer
ranges is always awkward..
Yes, I agree, it would make things cluttered and the complexity could easily
get out of hand. In retrospect I'm not so fond of the idea.
So, I would definitely prefer this syncrepl solution, especially if
syncrepl was also extended with a (list of?) locally evaluated ldap URLs
that an entry must match (or not match?) for the syncrepl stanza to
accept it. Entries received from the producer, or found in the local
database upon startup, should be ignored by the syncrepl stanza unless
it do (not) match any of these URLs.
This would allow a syncrepl stanza to maintain only parts of a local
database, and one stanza could be used to pull in the specialized
database configuration from one location, others to fetch common parts
like the acl and schema configurations from other locations.
That sounds even more complex. I think you're also touching on ITS#5990,
allowing a single entry to receive portions of its attributes from multiple
providers. I'd like to add that feature at some point, but I don't think now
is the right time. (Unless someone shows us a working patch already...)
Hm, it might be sufficient with a syncrepl option that makes it
entries against its configured searchbase and filter, and ignore entries
that fails to match. But not equally flexible.
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/