On Fri, 1 May 2009, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 02:54:08AM -0400, Ricky Zhou wrote: > > On 2009-05-01 09:11:11 AM, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > Maybe if someone gives some detail on why the LDAP setup looked like > > > too hacky we could find a better solution and use LDAP? > > > We were basically trying to use LDAP like a relational DB instead of a > > directory, so we were trying to force our entire sponsorship system to > > be totally contained in LDAP. Looking back at this, the best approach > > with LDAP would probably have been a DB for sponsorship data, and LDAP > > for holding approved user/group data. As I mentioned, I'd be interested > > in exploring this approach a bit more in the future. > > With details I mean something more like what exact bits where not > mapping naturally into some LDAP structure, existent or custom schema > made. > Both ldap groups basically suggested to us to have 3 groups for each 'group'. SO if you have a sysadmin group we'd have 'sysadmin' 'sysadmin-sponsors' and 'sysadmin-admins'. Then we'd move people from one group to another. Then there was the concept of marking who sponsored who in that group. So if Axel joined the sysadmin group and I sponsored him in that group, that I be able to track that information. Those two requirements together make ldap a poor solution in our use case. -Mike _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
