Re: Updating a private schema (cn=config)?

[Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>]

Andrzej Jan Taramina wrote:
> Howard said:
> 
>> Exactly. "database" != "RDBMS", no matter how much the RDBMS folks
>> like to claim otherwise.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "A database is a structured collection of records or data that is stored
> in a computer system.
> [..]
> But I think you guys are splitting hairs,
> the red flag indicator being someone mentioning "sparking a semantic war".

Uuumh, who started questioning back-ldif being a database backend for
OpenLDAP?

>> What you've described is similar to the original design, 3 years ago,
>> but it proved unworkable. You can read through the openldap-devel
>> archives from that time period for more background on the decisions.
> 
> Pity.  Then again, times change and new solutions to old problems
> sometimes surface, so decisions made that long ago are worth revisiting
> sometimes. 3 years is a long time in technological terms.
> 
> As for reading the archives, in my copious spare time, right? ;-)

Well, at least some people here spent their spare time answering your
questions.

Given the general lack of spare time of skilled people it's a little bit
strange asking developers here to revisit decisions they made 3 years
ago although nobody else than you has a problem with it. So Howard's
advise to dig the mailing list archive was absolutely appropriate. If
you point out a real problem I'm sure people here will listen.

> Regardless, not exactly conducive to attracting new involvement in
> the OpenLDAP project from other people who might have something to
> contribute, IMO.

Contributions are always welcome. But they have to fit into the model.
If being advised to dig the archive is holding you back from
contributing the issues you mentioned are not important enough (for you).

Ciao, Michael.