Howard Chu wrote: >> From: Adam Tauno Williams <[email protected] >> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:19:51 -0500 > >>> > Does it tend to replace LDIF, or do they have different purpose ? >> >> You could replace LDIF with DSML if all your tools supported it. >> Personally I think it would be really nice as LDIF (like iCal, vCard, >> etc..) is yet-another-stupid-file-format that needs to be parsed and >> diddled with. Whereas DSML, being XML, you can just use XPath / XSLT to >> do/extract whatever you want. But in reality we are stuck with LDIF. > > Since LDIF predates XML, I'd say "XML is yet-another-stupid-file-format > that needs to be parsed and diddled with." XPath/XSLT are grossly > inefficient. When you're reloading a backup of a 100-million entry > directory, you'll appreciate the difference between LDIF and XML a lot > more...
Probably also worth reading: http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ldapcon2007/slides/HighsAndLows20070906.pdf Ciao, Michael.
