[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on LDAP support in heimdal
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Comments on LDAP support in heimdal
- From: Lars Kellogg-Stedman <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:02:09 -0500
- DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=q6BUNaR5ZTXP5H7YInlmxj6Z7Tau2LaPb0w4HZfFowKShGX35UNfyZxcf6tmnhbD6jLAbJ7VIZ4egwaYJk9fZ15hAbYCAPond810Ezm7pwC//V4IbpgcKX1Ne5uk1PG3neDSoxXprW/n2O28/a996up+wahQTLI4NfVzH8LDzOM=
- In-Reply-To: <43656C7D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <43656C7D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
> While we're on this subject, it might be a better idea to make to treat
> the dbname as a URI...
That would be a great idea, and I had considered adding that to my
original email...but I refrained from mentioning it because I didn't
want to distract anyone (alas, I've failed) from the questions in my
(1) Is LDAP hdb as a dynamic module supposed to work?
(2) Shouldn't a dbname with an hdb-schema prefix like ldap: generate
an error if an appropriate hdb module isn't available?
(3) Should the logic used to create log files from dbnames be
different? Or should non-file backends *require* an explicit log_file
Lars Kellogg-Stedman <firstname.lastname@example.org>