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

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 someone-else's DIT.

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?

Good question.

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
their data.

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/