> On Jan 06, 2015, at 16.00, Nick Atzert <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's pretty messy and convoluted IMO. That's with a fairly pedestrian view of > the project. Considering it's (apparently) unmaintained I'd assume it's the > same for development. The biggest issue I've been having is mostly with > understanding error logs when things break or deviate from a really basic > config.. that may just be me though.
i'd offer that it's really not even about this. the sql backend was/is not intended to be included in consideration for use as the backend when setting up a new directory service with its own data. rather, the intent was to offer the potential to expose data [in a limited capacity, as you can see] from an existing sql database, via ldap. others in more authoritative roles will correct me if this is inaccurate, but it being messy/convoluted/unmaintained/undeveloped/etc should be considered an indication of its intent, rather than abandonment of what was once intended to become some comprehensive slapd backend. i think you'll also find that sentiment reflected in the archives of this mailing list. my experience has been that when someone asks for help with slapd-sql(5) thinking they've cleverly figured out a great way to set up their new openldap server, folks aren't generally sympathetic to the cause. conversely, when the question posed is "i'm stuck with this sql database, but would like to make some of its data available via ldap", often times responses are quite magnanimous and accommodating. -ben
