[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: using a proxy/rewrite to obviate the need for a legacy suffix?

To: Tim Mooney <Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu>
Subject: Re: using a proxy/rewrite to obviate the need for a legacy suffix?
From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:06:54 -0700
Cc: openldap-software@openldap.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.SOC.4.64.0707091558160.22868@dogbert.cc.ndsu.NoDak.edu>
References: <Pine.SOC.4.64.0707091558160.22868@dogbert.cc.ndsu.NoDak.edu>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.9a7pre) Gecko/2007070705 SeaMonkey/2.0a1pre

Tim Mooney wrote:

Both "meta" and "relay" are experimental, so either one of them could
be abandoned and become a dead end for us in the future.

Neither of those will be abandoned.


We're leaning toward "relay", since this seems to be very close to what
it was designed to do.


It is exactly intended for this purpose.

Can anyone provide any hints, suggestions, or moral support on whether
we're heading in the recommended direction, or whether there's a better
way to obviate the need for our legacy suffix entry using some other
kind of rewriting?

Thanks,

Tim

--
  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.  http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun        http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP     http://www.openldap.org/project/

References:
- using a proxy/rewrite to obviate the need for a legacy suffix?
  - From: Tim Mooney <Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu>

Prev by Date: using a proxy/rewrite to obviate the need for a legacy suffix?
Next by Date: Re: using a proxy/rewrite to obviate the need for a legacy suffix?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread