James, Do you want the ARC to raise the LDAP direction issue or do you think that the project team needs to deal with that? Certainly, the chair could send a note to the appropriate management. -edh
On 02/25/09 06:59, James Carlson wrote: > Jyri Virkki writes: > >> James Carlson wrote: >> >>> On the grounds that there's a distinct lack of system architecture >>> here that would allow the project team to make an informed choice (and >>> allow the ARC to evaluate that choice), and thus this project is >>> certainly not "obvious," I ask that either the LSARC chair grant me >>> temporary standing here so that I can derail, or that (alternatively) >>> an active LSARC member speak up to pull that lever. >>> >> Note most of this discussion has been happening in the wrong thread, >> 2009/123 is the case which switches APR to OpenLDAP. This case, >> 2009/124 is merely a consequence (what Apache does, PHP must do). >> > > Indeed; thanks for the correction. I've updated the subject line to > match. > > >>> At a minimum, we need to have a written opinion noting that LDAP is a >>> fundamental system service, and that building it atop a foundation of >>> sand is a very bad idea. >>> >> To keep some perspective, what Sun calls volatile sand is what all of >> these 3rd party applications build their ldap support on and their sky >> isn't falling from what I'm told. >> > > In that case, "Volatile" might not be the right classification after > all. > > In any event, that's a trivial matter compared to the lack of > direction regarding LDAP on Solaris. *That* issue needs to be raised, > regardless of the stability attributed to OpenLDAP. > >
