[Rails] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANN] Net::LDAP 0.0.3 released, a

[Francis Cianfrocca]

Justin Forder wrote:
> Francis Cianfrocca wrote:
> 
>> I've specifically tested this against several different well-known LDAP 
>> servers and found that most of them violate the atomicity requirement. I 
>> haven't tested TDS for this. If you can do such a test against TDS, I'd 
>> be most interested in hearing the result.
> 
> That's depressing. Are those servers certified for LDAP compliance? If
> you could send me a test I'll see what I can do with respect to TDS.
> 
>> Justin, you'd better hurry down to the coast while there is still some 
>> weekend left ;-). But thanks for all the attention you're paying to 
>> this.
> 
> :-) I enjoyed a bit of walking, swimming, and a few pints in the country
> pubs.
> 
> regards
> 
>    Justin


LOL! What is LDAP compliance certification? In practice there are only a 
few directory servers in wide use (a lot of iPlanet, some TDS and some 
Oracle in enterprises, OpenLDAP on all the scruffy Linux boxes, and 
ActiveDirectory *everywhere*). So I'd have to suppose as a practical 
matter that LDAP compliance comes down to what A/D does: an extremely 
low common denominator, extremely bad performance, and full of awful 
bugs that will probably never be fixed.

OpenLDAP is probably the most compliant LDAP server I've seen, although 
it too has quirks. And it actually deserves its reputation for slowness. 
I once had to implement an LDAP server from scratch for a particular 
application (still in production), and query-performance is about 30 
times better than OpenLDAP.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.