Re: (ITS#4322) back-relay should be more user-friendly

[ando@sys-net.it]

On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 18:37 +0000, richton@nbcs.rutgers.edu wrote:
> > single virtual one.  I haven't tested it this way for a while, so if it
> > doesn't work it's a bug.  I'll check the original issue and, in case,
> 
> If this is considered a bug, that's great. If you want to play along with
> the same thing I'm looking at, ./run -b hdb test012, then modify
> 
> --- slapd.1.conf        2006-01-10 13:30:58.969405000 -0500
> +++ slapd1confits4322      2006-01-10 13:30:31.765158000 -0500
> @@ -82,4 +82,9 @@
>  #ldbm#dbnosync
>  #ldbm#dbnolocking
> 
> +database       relay
> +suffix         "o=Beispiel,c=DE"
> +relay          "ou=Information Technology Division,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com" massage
> +relay          "ou=Groups,dc=example,dc=com" massage


> Hmmm, now that I think about this, some sort of (non-global?) rwm and/or
> glue badness?

Just, an instance of rwm is created for each "relay", and this causes
undesired side effects.  Note that there is a check about having
multiple instances of the same overlays stacked over the same database,
but apparently code changed and the check does not catch this.  I'd be
tempted into putting this in the ITS#4211, as I think when back-relay
and slapo-rwm configuration will be rewritten many of these issues will
disappear.

p.




Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
Responsabile Open Solution
OpenLDAP Core Team

SysNet s.n.c.
Via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
------------------------------------------
Office:   +39.02.23998309          
Mobile:   +39.333.4963172
Email:    pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it
------------------------------------------