3 ms·
Glad 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 SQl
by nitnelave 4y ago
Glad 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.