Quick examples:
* The class needs to have a couple of other mandatory attributes;
* The object needs to be created, that consists of a couple of aux classes,
but I do not want to specify the class for each combination of the aux
classes.
* The class name has a wrong spelling;
Could you tell me if these issues are easy resolvable. I do not want you to
resolve
them for me as I do not need to resolve them right now, but to give just a
general
answers, like yes/mo/maybe. It SEEMS to me, that AD is the most restrictive
platform
concerning the schema.
Sincerely, Val.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Judd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 12:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory - Visions from the field
>
>
> 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/
>
List info: http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
