[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (Was ITS#4333) crash in back meta

Aaron Richton wrote: 
[moving to -software because now I'm asking usage]

Furthermore, it __should__ be more efficient to use back-relay + slapo-rwm
for the purpose of binding to a local database with a virtual naming
context.

I'd love to move this to back-relay and not have the network involved, but
I don't see how to do "translucent with back-relay" behavior without quite
a few rewriteRules (and even then I'm not sure it would work).

I mean, take the test034 "remote" example, essentially

database        bdb
suffix          "o=translucent"
overlay         translucent
translucent_no_glue
uri             ldap://localhost:9011/

obviously making a superset of o=translucent on 9012 (relative to original
o=translucent 9011).

Say I wanted a translucent on the :9011 server in slapd.1.conf. I'll
concede to "suffix o=translucent_new" being required (:9011 can't serve
two different o=translucent). How would I specify:

database bdb
suffix "o=translucent_new"
overlay translucent
relay "o=translucent"

is that actually valid?
No, the translucent overlay only uses back-ldap. I guess it would be possible to extend it for use with other backend types; you could easily get into some nonsensical situations that way...

--
 -- Howard Chu
 Chief Architect, Symas Corp.  http://www.symas.com
 Director, Highland Sun        http://highlandsun.com/hyc
 OpenLDAP Core Team            http://www.openldap.org/project/