>> Am Freitag 26 Februar 2010 13:30:55 schrieb masarati(a)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
> consequence of removing slapo-syncprov(5), any consumer using it needs
> be clearly informed that just retrying later is probably not an option.
> On the contrary, returning a dedicated error would allow to exactly
> 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
no provider configured. We don't do anything special for that case; I
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...