On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 15:07 -0400, Prentice Bisbal wrote:
On 05/31/2017 02:55 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
> Prentice Bisbal wrote:
>> On 05/31/2017 12:37 AM, John Lewis wrote:
>> This sounds like the wrong tool for this job.
> Really? Can you give a point by point comparison against what you
> think is the "right" tool for the job?
That's the wrong question to ask, since I never made any claim as to
what the right tool is. A better question to ask would be why I think
this is the wrong tool. So here's my reply to that: It doesn't seem like
this is a job LDAP was designed for. To me, LDAP is really just a
standardized database interface that make certain type of DB looks up
easy, and most importantly, standardized.I would think a more general
purpose database interface would be better for this.
Unfortunately, I'm not a database expert, so I can't give you the
"point-by-point argument you requested.
Now your turn - why would OpenLDAP be a good fit for this over other
Yes, LDAP is really just a standardized database interface. That is the
point. I want my logs available through an IETF standardized protocol so
I can reuse tools so I don't have to maintain as many tools.
OpenLDAP would be a good fit over other databases because Michael, and
Howard, and the other contributers to OpenLDAP did most of the work for