RE: Have you seen this FUD - IT pros suffer OpenLDAP configuration headaches ?

["Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org>]

> From: Howard Chu
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:41 PM
>
> Not at all. My position is still that we tried multiple alternatives and
ruled
> them out.

Yes, 10 odd years ago you looked at reloading a flat text configuration file
and decided not to do it. And since not a single thing could have possibly
changed in that 10 years, there's absolutely no reason to ever consider it
again. After all, since signals and multithreaded programs were a bad
combination 10 years ago, there's no way that signals and multithreaded
programs could possibly work today, right? Just like 10 years ago there were
no other options other than signals, such as UNIX sockets, to control a
program externally. A decision made is a decision finalized, and pity the
fool who might want to reconsider it, even if only as an abstract
hypothetical.

> > And you're still acting as if nobody has ever posted to the mailing list
in
> > favor of keeping the plaintext configuration, and of having the feature
of
> > dynamic reconfiguration from the plaintext configuration, which is just
plain
> > egocentric.
> 
> No. That's experience too.

Yes, you have plenty of experience at telling people who express the desire,
need, or requirement for plaintext configuration that they don't really
desire, need, or require plaintext configuration, that they are morons, have
no basis for an opinion, have nothing to contribute to the discussion,
clearly have no development skills, and perhaps should have never been born
in the first place.

> There's no excuse for ignorance when the links have already been posted
and
> everything is published on the www.openldap.org website.

May I see a show of hands as to who has reviewed the entirety of the
www.openldap.org website, including all of the mailing list threads,
presentations, topics linked to, and FAQs? Didn't raise your hand? Please
unsubscribe from the list immediately and stop pestering Howard with your
uninformed and ignorant postings.

You already have the framework for dynamic reconfiguration. If the guts are
LDIF, more power to them. But there's nothing magic about feeding that
framework LDIF. Given the ability to turn a plaintext slapd.conf into LDIF
(which exists), the ability to take two LDIF files and generate a third LDIF
file that turns the first into the second (which exists), it seems it's
really not that much glue required to hook all that together and feed your
dynamic reconfiguration framework the LDIF it wants based on the changes
between two flat text configuration files. Disregarding the fact that you
don't want to do it, disregarding the fact you don't want it done, and maybe
even staying on track with the technical discussion and not diverging onto a
tangent about how my great great great grandfather was too incompetent to
shoe a horse, why exactly is it that such a design is infeasible,
impracticable, and impossible to implement? Obviously you couldn't do this
10 years ago before you had the existing LDIF based reconfiguration
framework, so saying you couldn't do this 10 years ago is not really a valid
justification as to why it could not be done now...