Should we keep the Samba4 LDAP backend?
oliver at itc.li
Fri Apr 1 08:47:12 MDT 2011
to comment just this following wrong (schema) statement:
dynamic schema updates can be handled safe in OL with online
configuration since early 2.4
> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> At the same time, the LDAP backend is fixed schema (no dynamic update
> currently supported), unsafe (no transactions) and really, really slow.
Am 01.04.2011 16:27, schrieb Oliver Liebel:
> Short: Yes.
> From my long term experience there are many large installations in big
> size companys
> worldwide, that make extensive use of OpenLDAP as a standard LDAP,
> mostly with coexisting W2KX-ADS.
> What they all need is an S4 with an (RFC) standard LDAP-backend, or
> more exactly,
> they need an customizable, RFC-compatible LDAP-Server with
> not only a Replacement for W2K8.
> Am 01.04.2011 14:54, schrieb Nadezhda Ivanova:
>> +1. It is very difficult to support and getting more difficult as we
>> the DS implementation. If there aren't any use cases for it, we
>> should not
>> support it.
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Jelmer Vernooij<jelmer at samba.org>
>>> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 19:29 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>> My proposal, if accepted, would be simply to remove the wiki pages and
>>>> the ability to build the ldap-backend with provision (perhaps
>>>> leaving an
>>>> option for the test scripts).
>>>> When we later need to make some change that is directly incompatible
>>>> with the LDAP backend, then we can easily decide to do that later,
>>>> knowing it is no longer a goal.
>>>> What do folks think?
>>> +1. It may still be nice to pursue in the future, but let's not have it
>>> hold us up for now.
More information about the samba-technical