20 Sep
2011
20 Sep
'11
4:13 a.m.
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Daniel Veillard wrote:
I don't think there's anything controversial here. I suspect the main concern is that these fields are named in a sufficiently general fashion so that they can be used for other backend storage types.
I guess the best is to start with the patches with the XML changes as an RFC and then add the code to wire the backend as a second step. Even if both are likely to be applied as a batch, the XML code review is likely to be the most controversial :-)
The first two patches of the series I posted last week add the authentication bits to src/conf/. I just updated to include changes to the schema files (docs/schemas) and am reposting. Thanks! sage