FC2 and general LDAP Support

[Felipe Alfaro Solana]

On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 00:16, Roland Käser wrote:

> Think of blade servers for web-application clusters. In a number of 50 
> to 100 servers. With the ldap system it might be possible to just 
> remotly install a new blade. It this installation starts for the first 
> time, it takes all the configuration settings out of an centralized 
> configuration store and works after that automaticly. If its need to 
> change the default start page of a webserver, the connection to the 
> database for the applications, etc. with that system it needs just to be 
> changed in the central config store and not on every single machine.
> 
> >While I am an LDAP advocate and agree that an admin tool for managing
> >users and groups in LDAP would be an appreciated addition (and maybe
> >managing printers and such there too), using it as the default would be
> >way overkill.  There are simply too many problems and it's not easy for
> >the less experienced to deal with.
> 
> It is not ment that with an LDAP Server all the users needs to know 
> about LDIF-files, schema files etc. The goal behind it should be that 
> the users doesn't needs to know all about that. They should can 
> administrate the system as it was bevore.

I didn't say I wasn't against LDAP ;-), but against a registry-like
repository like Windoze Registry. I even don't like GNOME's GConf.

While I worked at Sun, I worked heavily with Sun ONE products. Nearly
all of them store their configuration on a centralized LDAP server. But
as someone said, having LDAP used by default is overkill.We must work
towards this goal: all applications should support LDAP, but also should
support local files and use them by default. For some scenarios, LDAP is
not suitable, like for example, appliances or servers running on the
DMZ. I think that deploying an LDAP server on the DMZ is overkill.