On Aug 11, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Mark Edwards wrote:
On Aug 11, 2006, at 7:11 AM, Eric Stadtherr wrote:
I agree with not relying solely on LDAP. Requiring LDAP for the
local address book imposes yet another installation/configuration/
maintenance/support requirement on the RoundCube administrator.
Also, for people who are hosting RoundCube on third-part web
servers, LDAP may not even be an option.
Having said that, LDAP is a very common directory service provider
for many companies and I think we need to support LDAP seamlessly.
Many e-mail clients (Thunderbird, Apple Mail) support read-only
access to LDAP directories as a supplement to their local address
book. I like this model, which is generally where RoundCube is
headed right now. There are some things we could do to more fully
support LDAP directories, some of which are in Tickets already:
address completion should incorporate results from an LDAP query
(Ticket #1483899)
authenticated bind to an LDAP server (there's a patch floating
around somewhere to hard-code this)
expanded query capability (useful for large directories). This
should be kept in mind when adding fields to the local address book.
On an aside, why do all these clients only support read-access to
LDAP? Seems like it would really great to be able to use LDAP in
place of a local address book in all of your clients, but that's
not a possibility if you can't write to it.
I don't get why it is only considered to be useful for reading
from. Something in the design of it?
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol was designed to be a
"lightweight directory access protocol". :) That is, it is highly
optimized for many reads, few writes. Contact information should not
change frequently. If you want to do a lot of writes, you use a
database.
--
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
