>> Da Rock <openldap-technical(a)herveybayaustralia.com.au>
schrieb am 08.12.2014 um
06:05 in Nachricht
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.
1. 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
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?
2. 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?