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

Re: back-sql deployment woes

Andrew Findlay wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:59:28AM +0100, Dieter Klünter wrote:
>> You may use back-sql as a read only subordinate database, but
>> performance is limited to the sql engine. Be aware that your
>> are on your own risk.
> Another option would be to use back-sock and write a separate server process to
> translate between the back-sock protocol (extended LDIF) and SQL.
> You should get better performance (if your server programming is good)
> and if something goes wrong there is less code to debug: back-sock has under
> 1500 lines of C, where back-sql has over 11000...
> There are still many caveats though: limited ACLs, fundamental mismatch in data
> model, poor performance and resource usage when compared with back-mdb etc...

And some security aspects like avoiding SQL injection?

Ciao, Michael.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature