Should we keep the Samba4 LDAP backend?

[tms3 at tms3.com]

SNIP
>
>>
>>
>> Could you help me understand what can or can't be done using LDB 
>> backend
>> of Samba4?
>>
>> I've post mail with question if my plan is possible to achieve using
>> Samba4. I'll quote it at the end of this email.
>> I have probably misunderstood LDAP vs LDB backend naming.
>> Could you answer me what of these could be done using LDAP or LDB
>> backends? What can't be done if you'll drop LDAP backend?
>> (other services, like dhcp, dns, mail, jabber are as much important as
>> Samba is and it's integration would be great)
>
> Dropping the LDAP backend will generally make no difference to using
> Samba4 in any way that you can already use Microsoft's AD.  The Samba4
> schema can be extended just like AD, in exactly the same way to 
> support
> arbitrary additional data.

As someone who has used S3/LDAP for nigh unto 10 years, my experience 
has always been, that systems that support directory services use AD 
or some LDAP, with the provision that "some LDAP" is supported if you 
can figure it out--here's a test schema.

Should S4 be capable of acting as DS as MS AD can, I can see no real 
show stopper. JMHO.

Thanks to the team for all the hard work.

TMS III
>
>
>
> Andrew Bartlett
>
> --
> Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
> Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
> Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
>