Re: backglue transition

[Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>]

Aaron Richton wrote:
> So a few things bother me:
>
> 1. The slapo-glue config that worked yesterday with 2.3.6 doesn't work--at
> all--today with 2.3.7.
>
> 2. The config that we tried to be compatible with from, say, 2.2.28
> doesn't work the same way with 2.3.7.
>
> 3. If I try to use either of those old configs, I get no
> warnings/errors/etc. despite the fact there's a behavior change.
>
>
> Finally, although I realize there were reasons for moving things into core
> and making 'subordinate' the keyword, I really liked the slapo-glue
> syntax. In my ideal world, the new backglue would be able to handle either
> style of config. I don't know if the new design makes this
> possible/plausible.
re:1 - I just consider the notion of "glue-sub" from 2.3.0-2.3.6 a 
mistake and would like to pretend we just used the 2.1-2.2 syntax 
continuously. Since I think the number of people adopting 2.3 at this 
early stage is probably small, I figured this move would solve more 
problems than it caused.

re:2 - I must've gotten confused as to which behavior I was trying to 
preserve. We can certainly swap it back to be identical to the 2.2 
order; this should be filed as an ITS. Basically I had no compelling 
reason for it to be one way or the other...

re:3 you'll get some kind of diagnostic message, but only if you have a 
non-zero debug level or loglevel.

I actually preferred the glue-sub syntax as well because of the more 
explicit associations of subordinate and superior DBs. But it also 
invited misunderstanding (e.g. Hallvard's example with multiple glue 
overlays configured in a single DIT) which would never have come up 
using the old subordinate syntax. As such, while it would have been 
feasible to keep it, I felt that it was more harm than good.

--
 -- 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/