Re: Meta Directory

[Tod Thomas <tthomas@chubb.com>]

Michael Ströder wrote:

> Tod Thomas wrote:
>  > Michael Ströder wrote:
>  >
>  >> Jehan PROCACCIA wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> Openldap with backend-meta !
>  >>
>  >> Isn't that more an LDAP proxy giving on-line access to various data
>  >> sources with name mangling capabilities? A thing some vendors call
>  >> 'Virtual Directory'?
>  >>
>  >> Whereas meta directories are typically used for syncing data off-line
>  >> from various sources.
>  >
>  > A "...successful metadirectory needs to be an information broker with a
>  > replication capability. It needs to run on a variety of platforms
>  > including NT, Unix, as well as the IBM S/390 mainframe. It needs to
>  > interoperate with other metadirectory solutions with support for LDAP,
>  > X.500, and Active Directory."*
>
> Pretty much, isn't it?
>
> Now the first question is: What do *you* wanna do with such a beast?
>
>  > It seems the definition of a metadirectory hasn't quite been pinned down
>
> More or less a meta-directory is a programming framework with big libraries
> for implementing the connectors.
>

Good, is there an open sourced version available?  I've looked at Ganymede but it
doesn't _seem_ to provide two way synchronization.  And while we're at it what
about provisioning tools?


>
>  > As I'm typing this I realize that given my above attempt at a definition
>  > LDAP becomes just another component within a group of data resources.
>
> Yes!
>
>  > Please define 'off-line' for me, I want to be sure of what you're
>  > describing.
>
> I have to admit that 'off-line' might be the wrong word. I meant that
> meta-directories, in opposite to 'virtual directories', do not handle a
> client request directly, gathering and massaging the results passed to the
> client. Meta-directories are for implementing synchronization processes
> working in the background, not upon end-user client's request.
>

Ok, I got it now.


>
> BTW: We should switch over to ldap@umich.edu list with such a general topic...
>
> Ciao, Michael.

You know that was my first thought, but it seems that the umich ldap discussion is
closed and references back to openldap!  Am I looking in the wrong place?

Tod