William Brown wrote on 6/23/2017 3:12 PM:
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 16:30 -0800, Kreuzenstein, Luke (DOA) wrote:
> My organization has made extensive use of the Directory Server (Web)
> Gateway (DSGW) for 20 years. I've yet to come across any suitable
> alternative (suggestions welcome if you're familiar with its functionality).
> We are at least a decade behind with updates, having been tied to the
> Oracle fork of directory and mail server products until recently. I am
> now experimenting with potential conversion to 389-DS or RHDS including
> the updated DSGW, and I may have encountered a bug.
> Is the DSGW still used and supported?
I don't think the code is well supported today. It's in a legacy
maintenance mode as far as I know.
Can I ask how you are using DSGW so that we can work out if there is a
better way you could interact with 389-ds? What are you trying to
achieve with this process?
Thanks, hope to help you with this more,
Thanks for the reply!
The directory in question is a central "master" repository that
feeds/synchronizes to other systems including an MS AD. DSGW is the only
interface we've made available for use by several hundred delegated
departmental administrators to administer roughly 30000 accounts. The
employee accounts are synced from a payroll system but any attributes
not supplied by the payroll system, plus any non-employee accounts, such
as for contractors, roles, services, shared mailboxes, etc, are created,
edited, and deleted as needed using the DSGW. There were once several
thousand groups also being administered via DSGW but we've whittled that
down to a few dozen. End users will use the DSGW too, but typically just
for read-only reference rather than an administrative tool.
Thanks for any suggestions. I know we could build some sort of
replacement from scratch using a variety of programming tools if the
motivation were strong enough, but I'm not intimately familiar with any
such tools. The DSGW has been quite convenient, sufficient for the task,
and surprisingly resilient. I keep waiting for some browser evolution to
make it unusable, but 20 years and counting isn't a bad run.