On Fri, 1 May 2009, 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.
I really hate this idea. Granted we're looking to use ldap as an
extension of FAS, but to require them both for base functionality is just
nasty to me. In my mind a system that requires both, and where you have
to know what information is where in order to query it is a poorly