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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
