[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Antwort: about back-perl [Virus checked]
>> Otherwise, please explain what you need. If you
>> need to publish SQL data in LDAPv3 form, I'd
>> suggest back-sql instead of back-perl.
> Hmm, the existing server does use mysql to store the
> data, but openldap can't access the database (mysql)
> directly. It has to talk through the API provided by
> the existing server (again, this is not an openldap
> server). So in this case, I don't think back-sql is
> the right choice since openldap can't access the mysql
> db directly like the way it works with bdb...am I
> right ?
back-sql allows you to access any RDBMS for which
ODBC drivers are available. MySQL used to be directly
supported, but it hasn't been tested for a while.
This means that using MySQL might require some
effort to put eerything up and running. Based on
your knowledge of both systems, it could be easy or
require a bit of head-bumping...
> And anyway, back-sql is still experimental right ?
All software is experimental in some sense. back-sql
is being used in production by those who set it up
appropriately. However, since there is no standard
track definition for most of the components, it'll
always be experimental in the sense that support for
specific features may not be present until someone
finds out that it is needed and not currently available.
For instance, last night we doscovered that some RDBMS
(ot is it the ODBC's fault? we'll never know...) doesn't
like how queries are done on all other known RDBMSes.
This required to rearrange how schema is loaded first,
in a way that's still compatible with the rest of the
world. See ITS#3091.
> What's the advantages and disadvantages of using
> back-perl in my case ?
You need to code in perl. The amount of coding might
not be trivial. If you use back-sql you'll need to
prepare metainformation. Both require effort, skills
and may present limitations. I'm not suggesting any