Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:43:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: pvh@leftside.wcape.school.za, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Moving ahead with LDAP Message-ID: <199808122343.QAA13385@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199808122113.OAA00425@dingo.cdrom.com> from "Mike Smith" at Aug 12, 98 02:13:38 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Are there any portable LDAPv3 servers available? Is the UMich server > at a developmental dead-end? The list was very dead for a long time, until I kicked it back in March or thereabouts. After that, a number of Linux people beat on me after getting my patches until I looked at their problems and fixed them. Basically, before I came along, the code was in very poor shape and had some bad assumptions about threading and select(2)'s first argument, etc.. After I took all of the Critical Angle patches and integrated them, fixed the dbm backend namespace bug, and fixed the threads and select assumptions, the code started working on about 8 platforms (SGI uses Draft 4 pthreads too). Since then, the Linux guys have gone nuts... there is a Linux specific LDAP WWW site dedicated to doing an LDAP-based Linux parameter store. Ah, to be a student and get back half my day again while scholarships and grants paid my way... ;-). Anyway, it appears that many of the UMICH people have gone on to commercial pastures, where they have a bit of a vested interest in keeping the patches hard to apply and the protocol one or more revisions out of step. I don't hold out much hope for the Linux effort; the people involved are enthusiastic, but were posting such things as "how do I fix this ``sys_errlist'' compile problem?" and generally stumbling over gdbm not woking, but the Berkely dbm working, and making the same errors about threading models that the original authors made (threading is considered preemptive if a blocking select() will result in a context switch, but they were tagging pthreads as being non-preemptive, and buzz-looping as a result). I'd like to see a serious effort at a commercially usable v3 server implementation (hopefully carrying forward under the UMich license or a UCB style project license for independently developed pieces and the agregation of the new and the old). I'm not sure the boolean.net repository promotes this; mostly because I'm not that sure that the UMich code is capable of evolving into a v3 server. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808122343.QAA13385>