Garber, Neal wrote:
I agree with you Alan that the server shouldn't just silently "work" with configuration errors. In the past, I've seen configuration errors preclude the server from starting. Is that still the case?
Yes.
If so, then given the seriousness of the error, as described in your response below, perhaps the server should fail to start in this case as well.
Huh? It does.
No. Clients that are exact duplicates can be safely ignored. Clients that are "similar" but not the same are conflicts. You may have policies, logging, etc. that depend on the fields that are different. Which one is chosen? One at random?
Do you really want the server to work *accidentally*? And one day, when something else changes, the server suddenly picks the *other* client definition, and all of your policies, logs, etc. are different?
I agree with you that conflicts are bad. I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. However, the current approach (even in 2.1.4) displays 2 error messages buried in the middle of hundreds of other startup messages.
Please show an example. Duplicates are WARNINGs. Errors cause the server to not start. Alan DeKok.