[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (Was ITS#4333) crash in back meta
Aaron Richton wrote:
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...
[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
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
obviously making a superset of o=translucent on 9012 (relative to original
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:
is that actually valid?
-- 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/