The list of competing ldap servers can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LDAP_software
When doing a GTrend analysis of the top competing open source variants, Apache Directory Server is in the top, but the level of the name we know (and don't speak ;-) as it counts for them) is a goal to strive for. See http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22389%20Directory%20Server%22%2C%20%22Apache%20Directory%20Server%22%2C%20%22Red%20Hat%20Directory%20Server%22%2C%20OpenLDAP%2C%20apacheds&date=1%2F2010%2066m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-2 . This trend analysis is based on G searches. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Radovan Semancik < [email protected]> wrote: > On 07/14/2015 12:56 PM, Ludovic Poitou wrote: > > The general rule around standard support is “be flexible in what you > accept, strict about what you produce”. > This should apply to the LDAP APIs as well. > > > This is not necessarily the best option: > https://github.com/martinthomson/postel-was-wrong/blob/master/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong.md > > I think that there needs to be some balance between strictness and > tolerance. However, Apache Directory API is not widespread enough. So even > if it is strict it is unlikely that it will create enough pressure on > outdated LDAP servers. And if it will work only with ApacheDS and OpenLDAP > then it will never become widespread. So I would be inclined towards more > tolerance in the API to make it practical. > > -- > Radovan Semancik > Software Architectevolveum.com > >
