Yes we will get there and it takes time. However building an LDAP server is very difficult and making sure
it is extensible while making it reliable and fast is beyond rocket science. Our architecture is designed for
flexibility and we will see LDAP acquire new concepts that have existed in the RDBMS world for years now.
LDAP will see a day when it has triggers, stored procedures, views and queues very soon to make it more
useful than ever.
Just keep in mind that an LDAP server is both a network server and a database server at the same time.
Most legacy LDAP servers are severely brittle. ApacheDS is something that will brew over time but hopefully
when we get to that mark it will still be extensible so we can build on it to take LDAP to places it's never
gone before. Also because of a flexible architecture we'll be able to implement much more sophisticated
algorithms that give us an advantage in each respect.
LDAP servers today do no justice to the technology. I think we have a chance to bring this protocol to the
So let's not freak when people try to compare ApacheDS to other servers on the basis of performance or other
metrics. All these aspects will be brought to par gradually together. After all many people are a bit intimidated
by what we're doing. Let the passion and vision drive us not the need to keep up with other servers around us
based on what they perceive to be the hottest aspect this month.
Eventually we'll be at the same level as other servers out there. And hopefully those other efforts will start to
take LDAP where we want it to go just because they want to remain competitive with our feature set.
Andrew C. Oliver a écrit :
> Stefan Zoerner wrote:
>> Ole Ersoy wrote:
>>> Yeah - Would be great if they would just drop the whole thing
>>> and go with something superior like ADS :-). They did it with
>>> Geronimo, now it's ADS's turn.
>> I just talked about the WebApp. I do not think that ApacheDS is
>> superior to TivoliDS yet. TivoliDS has a very solid persistence (DB2)
>> and has some really large installations in production for ages.
> DB2's locking scheme isn't very good for assuring consistency on read
> mostly systems.
I have seen DB2+TivoliDS used in a big company with more than 70 000 000
entries. Stable, reliable. I wish ADS is half as good as TivoliDS + DB2 ;)