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.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature