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

Antw: RE: Have you seen this FUD - IT pros suffer OpenLDAP configuration headaches ?

>>> "Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org> schrieb am 14.05.2014 um 22:18 in Nachricht
<0ce601cf6fb1$b6199c60$224cd520$@acm.org>:
>>  From: Howard Chu
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:41 PM
>>
>> If you didn't actually spend any of your own time writing code to test an
>> approach, failing, and trying another approach, you've got no right to
>> demand any particular implementation from anyone else.
> 
> I'm sorry, I must not be remembering the message in which I demanded you do 
> anything. Could you possibly send a link to the list archives pointing it 
> out?
> 
> As I recall, I simply said that dynamic reconfiguration could be done via 
> rereading the flat text configuration file, and that the developers chose not 
> to do so then and choose not to do so now. Both of which are factually true. 
> Perhaps the basis for your venomous and unnecessary personal attacks is what 
> you read into my message that wasn't actually there?

Well if you want to sync your configuration with LDAP means, the LDAP representation (as well as DIT metadata) makes sense.

> 
> I've been trying to get a message I posted to the developers list regarding 
> a trivial extension of the password policy module to support microsecond 
> granularity for authentication failures approved and delivered for two weeks 
> with no luck. Why on earth would I spend the amount of time and effort it 
> would take to implement flat text config file based dynamic reconfiguration 
> when I can't even get engagement on what will likely be a five line diff? On 

If you see the server as an island, modifications are trivial, but if the server is part of an infrastructure, any change may break other parts of the infrastructure.

> top of which, you've already made it clear that you would not accept an 
> implementation of dynamic reconfiguration from flat text configuration files 
> even if it existed and functioned perfectly, so it would be an exercise in 
> utter futility, even more so than this discussion.

At that point one might argue that implementinc two mechanisms for the same thing is one too much, maybe.

I'm not an OpenLDAP developer...

Regards,
Ulrich