Da Rock openldap-technical@herveybayaustralia.com.au schrieb am 08.12.2014 um
06:05 in Nachricht 54853198.1000404@herveybayaustralia.com.au:
Aside from other issues (which haven't really been solved... just possibly worked around :/), I've been doing some tinkering and have raised some questions which I'm hoping will have answers to.
- cn=config and friends: Looking at the schema and methods used to
implement this config type, I got to considering that I could (in theory) name my databases such as olcDatabase=MyLDAPDatabase (or the
Do you know the difference between a name and a type?
Basically you cannot name your "database" at all; you can order your databases and select where to store it (file names).
like), rather than bdb/hdb/mdb. I then found that I couldn't and then looked it up to see why - I found that it had a naming restriction, but not why. Aside from possible limits within the programming as it stands now, is there some semantical issue why this is the case? Wouldn't possibly be easier to determine which database is which if the administrator was able to name them as they wish?
- mdb: I know this is the way we're expected to go with ldap now, but
what is the point of a db that can't grow as needed? It seems rather limiting (and old school - remember early unix programming on the old IBM mainframes and DOS for the PC's later with the 640k limit), so why the push in this direction? Or is it expected that this will be resolved in the future?
Cheers