|
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
Alex Karasulu made changes - 10/Feb/06 12:43 PM
Alex Karasulu made changes - 10/Feb/06 02:14 PM
No time for this for 2.0. Let's try to dig the proposal for 2.5
Emmanuel Lecharny made changes - 09/Jul/08 01:26 PM
No longer needed with JNDI out of the picture.
Alex Karasulu made changes - 21/Aug/08 04:38 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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".