James Carlson wrote: > > > 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.
Perhaps. My sense is that some parts of OpenLDAP APIs are stable (and some apps use only those parts) while other parts are unpredictable, but that's just hearsay. It's up to the team owning OpenLDAP (whoever that is or ends up being) to figure that out. > 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. Going back to 2009/123, the SWI org management is unlikely to fund any core Solaris work (not that I speak for them or make those decisions, just seems unlikely). Solaris org management will need to handle that. Unfortunately it seems they have already spoken very clearly on the matter (via the non-existence of a team). We can certainly try another "advice to PAC" opinion as we did back in 2006/582, though I remain unconvinced anyone outside ARC reads those. What I don't want to see is a situation where Sun prevents the vast majority of non-Sun applications from having working LDAP support on Solaris (and only on Solaris since they all are known to work fine with OpenLDAP elsewhere) simply because Solaris org hasn't figured out their internal LDAP strategy. It's the kind of thing which prevents Solaris from being taken seriously by developers and deployers. -- Jyri J. Virkki - jyri.virkki at sun.com - Sun Microsystems
