On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 14:33 -0500, Peter Staubach wrote: > Jeff Moyer wrote: > > ==> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:03:40 -0500, Peter Staubach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > said: > > > > Peter> Jeff Moyer wrote: > > Peter> > Hi, Ian, list, > > Peter> > > > Peter> > Here's a patch that significantly cleans up the lookup_ldap module. > > Peter> > In the beginning of time (for this module), there was only one > > Peter> > supported LDAP schema. And for a time, it was good. After a > > while, > > Peter> > however, standards emerged -- standards which conflicted with our > > Peter> > original LDAP schema vision. With each new standard, our LDAP > > module > > Peter> > gained ugly if clauses and added return values. The parsing of > > such > > Peter> > things made the module less and less pleasing to the eye. And, > > users > > Peter> > began to complain of many queries to their poor little LDAP > > servers. > > Peter> > > > Peter> > In a heroic effort to bring peace back to the world of autofs and > > Peter> > LDAP, I present this patch. Among its merits, I submit the > > following: > > Peter> > > > Peter> > o It will perform less binds to the LDAP server > > Peter> > o It will remember which LDAP schema worked, and continue to query > > Peter> > only that schema (instead of trying all three every time) > > Peter> > > > > > Peter> It is good to remember the working schema, but what happens if that > > Peter> schema stops working? It seems like it would be good to forget and > > Peter> then try all three again until another working schema is discovered. > > > > I'm not sure that a sane administrator would switch schemas in > > production; that seems like a fairly unlikely situation. Also, how > > would you differentiate between a failed lookup for a key that doesn't > > exist and a failed lookup due to a schema change? I think that we > > have to enforce at least some sane constraints, here. > > > > > > I guess that I was naively hoping that there was some way to > differentiate between these two failed lookups. > > If not, then I agree completely. I think that assuming a sane > administrator may be a bit of a dangerous assumption, but what > the heck, gotta start someplace, I guess. :-)
A sane administrator, now there's a thought! Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
