> This solves the problem for multiple providers, but the problem isn't > solved for where the same provider is used twice, for example: > > - If user is present in file A or file B > - If user is present in directory A or directory B
hmm... isn't this kind of thing really up to the provider itself? I would think that the provider would need to be intelligent enough to understand when to iterate over directories or files and when not to. > > There are two options to this: > > - Teach each provider how to handle multiple instances of itself (sounds > like too much duplication) > - Introduce a concept like this: > > <Auth ldap-provider-A> > # LDAP stuff for LDAP server A > </Auth> > <Auth ldap-provider-B> > # LDAP stuff for LDAP server B > </Auth> > > AuthBasicProvider ldap-provider-A ldap-provider-B while I don't claim to have more than a cursory understanding of ldap, I would think these cases could be handled by extending the current situation a bit. for instance, for the file provider something like AuthBasicProvider file AuthFileName file1 file2 if AuthFileName were ITERATE mod_authn_file would know that it should not return AUTH_USER_NOT_FOUND until it has checked all the files present. or somesuch off the top of my head. are there situations specific to ldap that would make some variant of this difficult or unacceptable? I'm just trying to get a better feel for why the exception you raise isn't an issue for providers to locally figure out themselves. --Geoff
