--On Wednesday, January 21, 2009 09:06:19 PM +0000 Salim Fadhley sal@stodge.org wrote:
What about the other issue - the connection limit? I would be delighted to use any build of 2.2.19 (it does everything I need), except that all of the builds I have seen for windows have a limit of 64 concurrent connections. The more recent builds have a limit of a few-thousand connections but without the "schemacheck off" feature so desperately need.
In addition to missing attributes required by the schema we also have extra attributes not required by core elements of the schema, and we also have malformed elements which do not have cn entries - I understand that this is not so much a violation of a schema but of the entire LDAP RFC. Unfortunately I am dealing with utterly crazy data which if I were to fix it would force me to re-test an entire application... it's a very big application which I mostly do not understand - that is why it's much simpler to make the new LDAP server work as much as possible like the old one.
While it would be inappropriate to repeat a historical flaming, my feeling is that it was a real nuisance to take a potentially useful feature which people were innocently (ab)using - it was abruptly removed without any simple migration path. I understand that disabling schema-checking would be a foolish thing to do in a conventional LDAP application (e.g. NIS), but many people use openldap for casual or experimental purposes for which it is very convenient to allow an "anything-goes" strategy.
Just so we are clear, you want the developers to implement a feature that they don't agree with so that an application that is dependent on a broken data model won't have to be retested. You find someone that signs up for that make sure you let them know that I have a bridge for sale.
Having said that, really the only thing that has changed is that you have to define some schema elements. No where does the software say that they have to make sense. You will have to read the documentation enough to know how to create the new elements you require and relax syntaxes to allow your bogus data, but if you do that you will still be able to re-implement your "anything-goes" strategy.
Bill
+-------------------------------------------------------- | Bill MacAllister whm@stanford.edu | Systems Software Programmer, ITS Unix Systems, Stanford University