[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: MOD OPERATION FAILS IN BACK-LDAP (fwd)
- To: Pierangelo Masarati <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: MOD OPERATION FAILS IN BACK-LDAP (fwd)
- From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:20:07 -0800
- Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
- In-reply-to: <200201211952.g0LJqS001772@server.aero.polimi.it>
- References: <email@example.com>
Redirected from -devel...
At 11:52 AM 2002-01-21, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
>I note that while many things targeted as to be released
>with 2.1 seem at a good poing, back-bdb looks still a bit behind.
>I'm afraid I won't be able to give architectural support to its
>development so I'm not in a good position to judge the excellent
>work other people are doing at it; however we might consider
>keeping back-ldbm around (and updated) for a while, even for a
>pre-release (call it alpha, or whatever). In fact I note that
>the new stuff (I'm thinking about DN handling and UTF-8, some
>logging issues and more) may still need some tuning about small
>defects that could be hidden by the rapid development and the
>inevitable problems of back-bdb.
My current thoughts are to "alpha" 2.1 as soon as it's
relatively stable. I think back-bdb will soon be good
enough to be included. And back-ldbm will likely be
included as well (minimally for those who prefer *DBM
over BerkeleyDB). Which is the default will depend on
which is viewed as more stable at that time (likely LDBM,
but BDB may actually prove to be more stable).
Anyways, I don't see BDB as being to limiting factor in
releasing 2.1 as it's getting a lot of attention. There are
still a number of small things on our TODO, Roadmap, elsewhere
which need getting done. In particular, Cyrus SASL v2 support
and man pages come to mind.
I would very much like to "alpha" in the next few weeks...