On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 15:07 -0400, Prentice Bisbal wrote: > On 05/31/2017 02:55 PM, Howard Chu wrote: > > Prentice Bisbal wrote: > >> On 05/31/2017 12:37 AM, John Lewis wrote: > >> > > > >> This sounds like the wrong tool for this job. > > > > Really? Can you give a point by point comparison against what you > > think is the "right" tool for the job? > > That's the wrong question to ask, since I never made any claim as to > what the right tool is. A better question to ask would be why I think > this is the wrong tool. So here's my reply to that: It doesn't seem like > this is a job LDAP was designed for. To me, LDAP is really just a > standardized database interface that make certain type of DB looks up > easy, and most importantly, standardized.I would think a more general > purpose database interface would be better for this. > > Unfortunately, I'm not a database expert, so I can't give you the > "point-by-point argument you requested. > > Now your turn - why would OpenLDAP be a good fit for this over other > databases? > > -- > Prentice >
Yes, LDAP is really just a standardized database interface. That is the point. I want my logs available through an IETF standardized protocol so I can reuse tools so I don't have to maintain as many tools. OpenLDAP would be a good fit over other databases because Michael, and Howard, and the other contributers to OpenLDAP did most of the work for me.