[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: glue ehancement?
Michael Ströder wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
Seems like it would be a good idea to define a new option "glue-peer" or
somesuch that allows multiple peer-level DBs to be glued together.
What exactly do you mean with peer-level DBs? I didn't get what
the idea is for...
Mainly for grafting OpenLDAP on top of an existing, poorly designed
In case of duplicate entries, we'd have to track them and either drop
some of them or merge them.
Hmm...how about bind requests?
I'm a very simple thinking guy. Therefore I'm not in favour of
endorsing a setup which lets the slapd admins believe they don't
have to think about schema and names spaces and consolidation of
Also a good point.
How should duplicates be detected (by DN, by filter?) and based on
which criteria should they be dropped or merged. Even merging is
messy: Merge all attribute values of same attributes of all merged
entries? Or give some entries priority over others or I'm already
totally confused now... ;-)
Yeah, good questions. Perhaps it is better addressed by enhancing
slapo-translucent instead to allow local entries to exist independently of
remote ones. At least in that case, there is a clearly defined precedence.
(All local data overrides any remote data.)
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/