[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: off topic : metadirectory
Not disputing your position on synchronous architectures. Organisations
deploy technologies that meet their requirements. I fully agree with you
that no standard has been defined, but within organisations such as EMA/EEMA
there has been many discussions on the use of meta and some complaincy to a
standard. I doubt this will come in the near future since Meta is intrusive
and joins applications that use several types of interfaces, the overheads
are high no doubt.
However, my experience has been with global enterpises who provide B2B, B2C
and B2E services and demand dynamic joins. I guess the subject & decisions
on what type of joins get delivered on openldap is a choice for Openldap.
In addition to this, tools to manage user objects and infrastructure
information requires this environment to be dynamic especially when it comes
to service providers.
Lets hope a standard comes by that homogenises the use of Meta 'joins'.
Thanks,
Dhiren.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pierangelo Masarati [mailto:masarati@aero.polimi.it]
Sent: 16 October 2001 16:49
To: Dhiren Pankhania
Cc: P. Vranckx; openldap-software mailing list
Subject: Re: off topic : metadirectory
Dhiren Pankhania wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would certainely expect for enterprise environments using a directory to
> look at servers that provide "dynamic" joins (as well as synchronous ) to
> applications such as Oracle, NT, PeopleSoft and so on. This provides a
basis
> for a single point of access and control for enterprise users, providing
the
> ability to support SSO and PKI amongst other things. Making it dynamic
> provides to some degree real-time capability. This is something many
> directory vendors are doing, so synchronous is a good starting point but
> OpenLdap when moving into the meta arena should aim to catch up with
levels
> of joins to apps and how it does this.
Well, back-sql provides access to sql databases in form of ldap views.
Dynamic joins are the the step that's missing. The strongest restrain
from implementing anything like that in OpenLDAP, in my opinion, is the
lack of a standard, as you said in your previous posting. I've designed
a couple of features taht would drive back-meta in that direction, but
the overhead is very large so they won't be feasible. I'd rather prefer
asynchronous joins. To this purpose the company I'm working with
developed
a set of agents that keep DSA and SQL databases in sync based on very
flexible rules. Maybe LCUP (if anybody will finally work on it :) may
become the (standard) brick for building synchronous synchronization.
Pierangelo.
--
Dr. Pierangelo Masarati | voice: +39 02 2399 8309
Dip. Ing. Aerospaziale | fax: +39 02 2399 8334
Politecnico di Milano | mailto:masarati@aero.polimi.it
via La Masa 34, 20156 Milano, Italy |
http://www.aero.polimi.it/~masarati