What, specifically, bothers you about "the implementation of the schema and
represenation of it through the LDAP layer" ?
If you are trying to make a common directory platform from multiple LDAP
implementations, you have a difficult road to travel. The issues are
fundamental ones: the LDAP RFC's, especially in the area of schema, are
vague.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ryjouk, Valeri
> (Valeri)
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 8:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory - Visions from the field
>
>
> What puzles me, that the accent is shifting from the system not being
> able to accomodate the needs of the people to the people, not planning
> the job correctly.
> I'm working on implementation of the LDAP schema for three platforms:
> - Netscape;
> - Novell NDS;
> - AD.
> After all the years of development, AD developers couldn't come close to
> the other platforms. I'm wondering if the "half a** baked system" should
> be used in your context, rather than the one you used.
> May be that is the reason, why people are so hesitant to move to the AD.
> Val.
> BTW, I have nothing against AD. It's just the fact, I have to work with
> it, and the implementation of the schema and represenation of it through
> the LDAP layer really gets to me. It didn't improve a bit during last
> 2 years :-(.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: René Demers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 10:51 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Active Directory - Visions from the field
> >
> >
> > Hello Peter,
> > I must admit that I'm one of those that says "AD is
> > GREAT". There's
> > approximately 400 people working in our company and we span
> > across 3 and
> > soon to be 4 continents. Active Directory in my case will
> > greatly improve
> > the abilities of our satellite locations to find and access
> > resources across
> > the entire company. While it is possible using NT 4.0, it's
> > much easier with
> > W2K and AD.
> > You're right when you say that AD MUST be properly laid
> > out & planned
> > before implemented and recovering from a half a** job is next
> > to impossible.
> > I've been planning our layout for approximately 3 months and
> > am still trying
> > to figure out some of the tougher parts such as fighting with
> > replication
> > times, bandwidth usage, etc...
> ...
> List info: http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
> List info: http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
List info: http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
