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