Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 08:47:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, mike@smith.net.au, jb@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel Config datafile... Message-ID: <199712130847.BAA26476@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199712130823.SAA01759@word.smith.net.au> from "Mike Smith" at Dec 13, 97 06:53:17 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Not if it can't do transactions. > ... > > Really, LDAP is not mature enough at this point, except for embedded > > systems where you can guarantee the behaviour of the back end, and > > the back end is either not write-cached, or understands the > > significance of container objects implicit by hierarchy. > > What you appear to be saying is that you cannot perform complex atomic > transactions, nor are transactions guaranteed to be serialised. > > There, I did it in two lines. 8) You miss the subtleties, though. You *can* do it, you just can't do it with all backend's for LDAP, nor can you do it without imposing overhead on the applications. You also left out that probably LDAP should have transactioning, but that even without it it, it's a good mechanism for name value pairs, better than FreeBSD flat file databases. And FreeBSD should probably go to LDAP for all native databases after taking the indicated precautions with the back end. 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712130847.BAA26476>