Thanks for the insight. Unfortunately in a small company it doesn't always come down to how "serious" you are about quality, but I harsh reality of limited resources. We would of course choose to test every LDAP server out there (because our clients will surely have them all), but that will not be a reality in the near future. We will be actively using and testing FDS and AD, so hopefully if we work with those two generically we won't get bit by one of the others. -Mont On 4/14/06, David Boreham <david_list at boreham.org> wrote: > Mont Rothstein wrote: > > > Just to be clear, when you say "much custom code" do you mean none if > > I am careful, or a little? This can obviously be a big difference > > since even testing a small number of changes against all the LDAP > > servers we might have to talk to could be a large task. > > It's a bit like the situation with RDBMS servers, but quite a bit better > (because the on-the-wire protocol and a significant proportion of schema > are standardized). > The differences primarily are in things like how to create indices, extend > schema (those are different for each server). Many applications don't need > to do those things, and they tend to 'just work' with all LDAP servers. > > If you're serious about your product's quality I _would_ advise doing some > testing with every LDAP server that you intend to claim support for. > > Active Directory is often the most oddball. Many of the other LDAP > servers share a common heritage and therefore the differences are > less pronounced. > > > -- > Fedora-directory-users mailing list > Fedora-directory-users at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users >
