Being Novell which is the leading provider of directory services, we
obviously have a great interest in LDAP. What if I were able to get the
Novell LDAP developers to step up and support AUTH_LDAP? Would that be
enough to get AUTH_LDAP put back into the mainstream?
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, July 29, 2002 9:35:05 AM >>>
Mod_proxy wasn't added back to the server until the developers had
proven that there was a development community around it, and most of
the
bugs had been fixed. The same must be true for ldap before it can be
added to the base distribution.
Also, as a counter-point to this. Adding a module to the core
discourages other people from implementing the same basic
functionality.
While that is usually a good thing, there are a LOT of versions of
auth_ldap for 1.3, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. I
know of at least 1 other auth_ldap for 2.0 (proprietary, by Covalent),
would any of those modules been created if auth_ldap was in the core.
Now, I am trying to stay out of this discussion, because I have an
obvious conflict of interests, but I did want to give people something
to think about.
Ryan
----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Nicholes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ldap
>
> I see the same thing happening to LDAP. For the most part it has
> been ignored. If it is considered to be unstable at this point, why
not
> put it in /experimental with the other modules that are considered
to
be
> "not yet ready for prime-time" but still very useful? In this way,
it
> will get the exposure that it needs, documentation can continue (BTW
> where did the docs go??) and when it is stable, it can be moved into
the
> mainstream.
>
> Brad
>
> Brad Nicholes
> Senior Software Engineer
> Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
> http://www.novell.com
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, July 29, 2002 6:03:26 AM >>>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > People didn't want it to be a part of the core more because of
module
> bloat.
> > As Aaron says, there is no reason to add all these modules to the
> core
> > only to have to release them on the same schedule - I like it as a
> sub project.
>
> When proxy was a subproject, it received no exposure, which was
> detrimental to the project as a whole. Bugs were only fixed when
proxy
>
> went mainstream again. Subprojects mean more work for end-users, and
> avoiding end-user work is better than avoiding developer work.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "There's a moon
> over Bourbon Street
> tonight..."
