On Fri, 1 May 2009, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 02:54:08AM -0400, Ricky Zhou wrote:
> On 2009-05-01 09:11:11 AM, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Maybe if someone gives some detail on why the LDAP setup looked like
> > too hacky we could find a better solution and use LDAP?
> We were basically trying to use LDAP like a relational DB instead of a
> directory, so we were trying to force our entire sponsorship system to
> be totally contained in LDAP. Looking back at this, the best approach
> with LDAP would probably have been a DB for sponsorship data, and LDAP
> for holding approved user/group data. As I mentioned, I'd be interested
> in exploring this approach a bit more in the future.
With details I mean something more like what exact bits where not
mapping naturally into some LDAP structure, existent or custom schema
Both ldap groups basically suggested to us to have 3 groups for each
'group'. SO if you have a sysadmin group we'd have 'sysadmin'
'sysadmin-sponsors' and 'sysadmin-admins'. Then we'd move people
one group to another.
Then there was the concept of marking who sponsored who in that group. So
if Axel joined the sysadmin group and I sponsored him in that group, that
I be able to track that information. Those two requirements together make
ldap a poor solution in our use case.