On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 17:14 -0700, Craig White wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 22:40 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote: > > Craig White wrote: > > > > >> >> I should have said that I'm hoping to maintain my address book > > >> >> with phpLDAPadmin, which as far as I can see more or less forces one > > >> >> to choose a standard schema. > > > > >> > I honestly don't know what a standard schema is...I know what schema's > > >> > I tend to set up but in reality, it really doesn't matter as long as > > >> > the schema you set up makes sense to you. > > > > As far as I could see - I haven't experimented with it much - > > phpLDAPadmin creates half-a-dozen top-level entries, > > and if you try to create an entry under any of them > > you have to choose one of a number of offered schemas. > > That is what I meant by a "standard" schema. > ---- > those are 'templates' > ---- > > I do find the language of LDAP unattractive. > > Assuming the idea is to create a tree-like structure > > (like the Unix file-system) > > the way of expressing it seems strange. > > But I'm getting the book by Gerald Carter you mention, > > and maybe that will change my mind. > ---- > well, it might be unattractive but it's entirely versatile, which I > suppose is part of it's unattractiveness. > > I think what most people struggle with is not the language but rather > the extremely rigid rule sets. > > If LDAP wasn't thoroughly useful, it wouldn't be so widely used. It is > part and parcel of Microsoft Active Directory as well as all sorts of > UNIX/Linux setups. It can handle not only address books, but > authentication, DNS, mail routing, various application preferences, > binary blobs like pictures, etc. > > It's overkill for a shared address book until you try to find another > shared address book solution. Not forgetting that it's the *Lightweight* Directory Access Protocol. The full DAP (X.500) is worse. poc -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
