[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: back-bdb flaw

To: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
Subject: Re: back-bdb flaw
From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:05:38 +0200
Cc: Gavin Henry <ghenry@suretecsystems.com>, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com>, OpenLDAP Devel <openldap-devel@openldap.org>
In-reply-to: <48867032.4020804@symas.com>
References: <488524C8.3050401@symas.com> <48858982.2090909@stroeder.com> <48864186.9010206@symas.com> <347BFFA5746BAE5D134027D8@[192.168.1.199]> <4886519A.3090202@symas.com> <50026.212.159.59.85.1216767311.squirrel@webmail.suretecsystems.com> <48867032.4020804@symas.com>

Howard Chu writes:
> Considering that back-hdb and back-bdb share 90% of their code, I
> don't see any immediate impact from this decision.  Even going thru
> and deleting/moving the files in CVS is more trouble than it's worth.

If so, the version (RE25?) which removes back-bdb can rename the "hdb"
backend to "bdb", maybe leaving "hdb" as an alias to be removed later.
They are similar enough that this should not cause confusion.  slapcat -
slapadd will be required to upgrade, but that's required anyway between
release branches.

What advantages do bdb still have over hdb today?  Only that it's more
used and thus somewhat better tested?

-- 
Hallvard

References:
- back-bdb flaw
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Re: back-bdb flaw
  - From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>
- Re: back-bdb flaw
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Re: back-bdb flaw
  - From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com>
- Re: back-bdb flaw
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Re: back-bdb flaw
  - From: "Gavin Henry" <ghenry@suretecsystems.com>
- Re: back-bdb flaw
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>

Prev by Date: Re: back-bdb flaw
Next by Date: Re: back-bdb flaw
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread