discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: GNUstep directory in userhome


From: ian . mondragon
Subject: RE: GNUstep directory in userhome
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:20:15 -0600

i agree.  i've been playing learning alot about LDAP lately & i think it
would be very neat if we started making various GNUstep pieces conform to
the protocol(s) for whatever reasons would be usefull.

- ian mondragon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Leeuw [SMTP:address@hidden
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 10:53 AM
> To:   address@hidden
> Cc:   Jonathan Gapen; Michael Scheibler; address@hidden
> Subject:      Re: GNUstep directory in userhome
> 
> Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, March 6, 2001, at 06:17 AM, Dennis Leeuw wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be more more useful to use one system for all, LDAP ?
> > >
> >
> > My initial reaction was 'good idea' ... then I thought about it a bit,
> > checked out some LDAP references on the web...
> >
> > For all that the 'L' stands for 'lightweight', LDAP support would
> actually
> > be very heavyweight in comparison to existing NSUserDefaults code, and I
> can't
> > actually see what we would gain ... we would be using a small subset of
> LDAP
> > capabilities, and I think that having to have an LDAP server running in
> order
> > to user the defaults system would be a pain.  In fact, configuration
> issues
> > like deciding which LDAP server to connect to are generally addressed by
> setting
> > values in the user defaults :-)
> 
> Which could be solved by having a single config file with just one line
> like:
> ldap-server    <ip-ldap-server>
> 
> 
> > My inclination is to say that NSUserDefaults should be based upon the
> simplest
> > possible code, with the fewest possible external dependencies.  It needs
> to be
> > extremely reliable because if it goes wrong it can really screw
> everything up.
> 
> The benefit would be that we could extend the use of LDAP as a GNUstep
> default db
> which could also contain address-books and and stuff like that, the user
> database,
> etc. I think that LDAP would fit in the NeXT style of thinking, which in
> my opinion
> is the idea of the client is the server.
> 
> Just some thoughts...
> 
> Dennis
>  << File: Card for Dennis Leeuw >> 



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]