Re: should one single search be able to encompass several databases?

[Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>]

Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> 
> Stig Venaas wrote:
> 
> > You create one database with suffix say dc=test,dc=com, and another with
> > suffix dc=hr,dc=test,dc=com. If someone does a subtree search with base
> > dc=test,dc=com, should the search also be done in the dc=hr,dc=test,dc=com
> > database? I think maybe it should, but it doesn't now, and I suspect it's
> > hard to implement. Should we implement this, or should we simply say that
> > people must put it all in one database?
> >
> > One way to work around this is of course to have a referral for
> > dc=hr,dc=test,dc=com in the dc=test,dc=com database. This is possible
> > if it is added before configuring the dc=hr,dc=test,dc=com database.
> 
> One clean (from the client's side,
> but a bit involved from the server side) chance to get what you're
> looking for is with a back-meta that proxies the two backends.

Without having a look at back-meta IMHO it is only suitable in
situations where you have a very specific tree partitioning and can
make assumptions about the server topology. The admin setting up
back-meta really has to know what he's doing.

Ciao, Michael.