>>> Da Rock <[email protected]> schrieb am >>> 08.12.2014 um 06:05 in Nachricht <[email protected]>: > Aside from other issues (which haven't really been solved... just > possibly worked around :/), I've been doing some tinkering and have > raised some questions which I'm hoping will have answers to. > > 1. cn=config and friends: Looking at the schema and methods used to > implement this config type, I got to considering that I could (in > theory) name my databases such as olcDatabase=MyLDAPDatabase (or the
Do you know the difference between a name and a type? Basically you cannot name your "database" at all; you can order your databases and select where to store it (file names). > like), rather than bdb/hdb/mdb. I then found that I couldn't and then > looked it up to see why - I found that it had a naming restriction, but > not why. Aside from possible limits within the programming as it stands > now, is there some semantical issue why this is the case? Wouldn't > possibly be easier to determine which database is which if the > administrator was able to name them as they wish? > > 2. mdb: I know this is the way we're expected to go with ldap now, but > what is the point of a db that can't grow as needed? It seems rather > limiting (and old school - remember early unix programming on the old > IBM mainframes and DOS for the PC's later with the 640k limit), so why > the push in this direction? Or is it expected that this will be resolved > in the future? > > Cheers
