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

Re: dropping back-ldbm (was: commit: ldap/servers/slapd connection.c)

--On Sunday, January 23, 2005 12:42 AM -0500 asr@ufl.edu wrote:

==> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:19:17 -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu> said:

I suffered several years of an ldbm based directory.  The comfort your
customers feel is illusionary, and sadly like many things psychological,
it is all in their head. :P

A facility broken in many ways I understand is often preferable to a facility broken in fewer ways, which I don't understand. This ripples out to the customers of my services, etc. This rapidly becomes a philosophical question requiring beer to settle properly: If users of my 2.6 million object LDBM database believe (in their head) that they're happy... :)

Now, we're working on BDB; don't get me wrong. But the comfort is real.

Well, I'll simply refer you to Howard's note about LDBM. I will say that since moving to BDB on OL, I've not once had my directory service be unavailable, whatever other issues I may have run into. I contrast that to several periods of time where I spent a week getting the LDBM directory back together after it happily propagated data errors from the master to every replica.

Third, how much time is spent just keeping LDBM working, when the real
future is in other backends?  It is like hiring someone to keep updating
a mainframe that can be used, but isn't, just in case you decide to use
it again.  It eats up time, and time is money, opensource software or

But this is a mainframe we -are- in fact using, every day.

Err, I think you missed my point. People who *want* to use LDBM can stick with whatever the last release of OL was to support it. LDBM is not being developed, feature wise. It is simply being brought along, at whatever cost there is in complexity to keep it working in the current code framework.

Finally, none of this addresses the question as to when we evaluate
things  for retirement.

Well, Kurt did that in parallel to this message. Don't think I can improve on it.

Kurt's mail simply ducks the bullet. Given the wonderful skills of the OL contributors, LDBM could be "maintained" for many years. I don't see that as an argument for keeping it around. The active development and addition of features is happening in the other, better, backends. The commits to LDBM are to simply keep it functioning, and again, simply eat up the time of those skilled contributors that could be better spent elsewhere.


Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITSS/Shared Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html

"These censorship operations against schools and libraries are stronger
than ever in the present religio-political climate. They often focus on
fantasy and sf books, which foster that deadly enemy to bigotry and blind
faith, the imagination." -- Ursula K. Le Guin