3 ms·
Nice!!!! Definitely giving this a whirl! The only features I need in LDAP * One-way (master->RO) Replication * Standards compliance for queries/binds * Easy
by exabrial 4y ago
Nice!!!! Definitely giving this a whirl!
The only features I need in LDAP
* One-way (master->RO) Replication
* Standards compliance for queries/binds
* Easy authentication for setup/administration
* Add additional schemas (For instance, the SSH Key schema)
OpenLDAP definitely makes all the above quite difficult, but it's doable.
One esoteric feature we use of OpenLDAP is SASL delegation. This allows us to defer some users to Active Directory. Nice party trick.
- nitnelave 4y agoGlad you like it :) It seems LLDAP is a bit more lightweight than you expect, though: - You could easily implement one-way replication on top, it's just an SQlite database, you can easily copy it around (or rather use the built-in `.backup`). - I'm not sure what you mean by standards compliance, but I've tried to stick to the RFCs for the small subset of LDAP that is implemented. - The setup and admin is one of the strong points of LLDAP, it's very simple :) - Additional schemas are currently not supported. We have some plans, but they're kinda longterm and definitely not any time soon. It also will probably be loosely-typed, essentially just allowing you to store arbitrary key-value pairs. SASL is a no-go, I don't plan on supporting it, it looks awfully complex.
- exabrial 4y agoAgree about SASL. We could actually live without SASL, and I wouldn't recommend attempting to implement it. We use it because it's there, it's supported, and we've figured out the reproducible steps to set it up. It's not pretty and I can't believe it actually works. The codebase for it must be intense.