need organizational hint

[Phil Howard]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 03:36:14PM -0700, David Lang wrote:

| it's definantly less work to learn LDAP then to modify every program to
| use something else and maintain your changes. with LDAP the software
| already uses it, or if it doesn't you can add support for it and feed the
| changes back to the developers who will probably thank you and add it to
| the main distribution so that others maintain it going forward (remember
| with your own database you will have to go through the modification
| process on the new versions of the software you use as well)
| 
| LDAP is in many ways an ugly, inefficant beast created by a committe, but
| it does have one significant advantage of most alturnatives, it's widly
| supported by programs and as you replace people your new people are likly
| to have some knowledge aobut it.
| 
| in many ways it's the same type of advantages that MS stuff has, but while
| the LDAP stuff is far from perfect they definantly seem to be a lot better
| then MS and you do have competition for your server software so you don't
| get locked into anything.

The reasons to avoid LDAP are beyond the topic of this mailing list.
Were this project just mail alone, LDAP probably would be the right
choice.  For other reasons, it can't be.  And I am the developer of
those programs elsewhere.

Yes, LDAP is ugly and inefficient.  I wouldn't want to encourage any
further work by that committee.  I suspect they know the people who
created e(X)tremely (M)essy (L)anguage.

Just curious: how many user/password lookups can I get out of an LDAP
server per second on say:  P-III at 1.0 GHz?

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN |   Dallas   | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------