[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: OpenLDAP schema
- To: OpenLDAP-software@OpenLDAP.org
- Subject: Re: OpenLDAP schema
- From: Djoko Triana <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:54:45 +0700
- Content-disposition: inline
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=fTHeNMJkmqG2P3BQALBKBKbnuI97YzU3Sp0ypjlKqWOkqdFZxFCitIu/1pF5w4ci6alW9iZqkPJgSrBPWhraNCj3330jmJEkIgargXfzD5R/yvUm/OP1dhoVxmS5jGChLADaKqTZRoSyq5l07OrK4Y2ZJZyHMTZPEDmEmKoDPDo=
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <426D15E8.email@example.com> <426D4534.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
it's posible to create own schema ?
> On 4/26/05, Mike Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Ron Wheeler wrote:
> > > The OpenLDAP schema element such as OpenLDAPorg and OpenLDAPperson
> > > seem to be particularly useful and well thought out and OpenLDAP seems
> > > to be the most popular Linux LDAP implementation.
> > >
> > > However, no one seems to recommend or discuss using the OpenLDAP
> > > schema elements.
> > > What is the downside of basing my repository on these objectclasses
> > > rather than the more commonly used objectclasses?
> > To the extent that you can consider them to be "vendor supplied schema",
> > they should generally not be used in production, unless
> > they are only serving to integrate with other products from the same
> > vendor. The reason for this is that it normally causes
> > "vendor lock-in" when you use vendor schema, since non GPL vendor
> > supplied schema most likely can't be used if you switch
> > LDAP server vendors (copyright reasons).
> > In this case, however, the only problem that you would run into if you
> > decided to switch "vendors" and use, e.g. Redhat Directory
> > Server is that the format of the schema files are slightly different and
> > the OL schema files would need to be ported. But it's a small job.
> > BR,
> > --
> > mike