I have a database rooted at "", and would like to use the monitor backend as well. I found that if I put "database monitor" before the 'database ""' definition, it will load just fine. However, if it is defined afterwards, it fails to load, since "" overloads it context. I understand that that is correct from a technical standpoint, but IIRC, there have been issues in the past having "database monitor" come before other database definitions. I thought it would be worthwhile to allow "database monitor" to be instantiated after a 'database ""' definition. Thoughts?
--Quanah
-- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Quanah Gibson-Mount writes:
(...) IIRC, there have been issues in the past having "database monitor" come before other database definitions. I thought it would be worthwhile to allow "database monitor" to be instantiated after a 'database ""' definition. Thoughts?
Sounds OK if a bit inconsistent - which makes me wonder: Has back-config made it easier to allow databases to come in any order in slapcd.onf?
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount writes:
(...) IIRC, there have been issues in the past having "database monitor" come before other database definitions. I thought it would be worthwhile to allow "database monitor" to be instantiated after a 'database ""' definition. Thoughts?
Sounds OK if a bit inconsistent - which makes me wonder: Has back-config made it easier to allow databases to come in any order in slapcd.onf?
It can make things different, not sure that it's any easier. I.e., instead of doing suffix validation in the config entry point, you do it in the db_open entry point. That way you can configure multiple DBs as desired, but then error checking comes much later.
-
Hallvard B Furuseth -
Howard Chu -
Quanah Gibson-Mount