Welp, I've failed.

[seth vidal]

On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:32 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> So a year ago we talked back and forth about what to do for FAS2.  We've
> spent a LOT of time on getting an easy front end to an LDAP back end.  It
> was a reasonably heated debate whether or not to use LDAP or postgres for
> the back end.  I was heavily in favor of LDAP for 3rd party support.
> 
> At the same time, during this last year, we've seen a huge push towards
> OpenID adaptation which is something we've always wanted on the front end.
> Our turbogears apps have proved to work very well and creating an api to
> work with FAS2 is very easy.  In light of these things, the big benefit of
> having ldap on the back end (3rd party apps) seems less grand and less of
> a win.
> 
> We've been working on FAS2 for almost a year now, and with the deadline
> looming the FAS2 dev's (me and ricky) talked about the best way to move
> forward.  We've decided to stick with an rdms.  Fortunately it shouldn't
> be too difficult for us.
> 
> We had been basing our application on fedora-ds, during the last year
> we've seen great changes in this application and how its packaged.  This has
> made it less stable/desirable as a back end.  All signs point to using
> postgres on the back end as being both the easier choice and the more
> reliable choice based on what we've seen.
> 
> I don't like to make decisions like this in a vacuum but time is tight and
> I really want to make this deadline.
> 
> Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?

If ldap doesn't fly, it doesn't fly.

my only question is how do you plan on doing the nss-integration for id
lookups? Continue using nss_db?

thanks

-- 
I only speak for me.