|
It is a great idea. I agree with you totally. Thanks!
Alex Karasulu says: (11:35:37 PM) hmmm this is interesting one 270 .. I guess [it] is JNDI URL thingy with instanceID Alex Karasulu says: (11:36:22 PM) will that have an effect on using URL if we move to making the provider URL a real url instead of a DN? Trustin Lee at gleamynode.net says: (11:36:56 PM) Hmm.. not sure. Alex Karasulu says: (11:37:07 PM) something to think about I guess Trustin Lee at gleamynode.net says: (11:37:07 PM) But using URL is better choice imho. Alex Karasulu says: (11:37:13 PM) yeah I think so too Trustin Lee at gleamynode.net says: (11:37:22 PM) because the property name is 'provider url' Trustin Lee at gleamynode.net says: (11:37:25 PM) it should be a URL. Trustin Lee at gleamynode.net says: (11:37:30 PM) Not just a DN. Alex Karasulu says: (11:37:33 PM) I was going to look into that later for 0.9.4 ... we need to think more about this one No time for this for 2.0. Let's try to dig the proposal for 2.5
No longer needed with JNDI out of the picture.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So for example if my instance was foo and my base was cn=bar:
apacheds://foo/cn=bar
I like this because if has the same look and feel as the LDAP url. I chose "apacheds" as the protocol section because we shouldn't use LDAP since this not using LDAP to access the context but rather some "internal protocol".