wmperry(a)aventail.com (William M. Perry) writes:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
writes:
> >>>>> "-BP" == William M Perry <wmperry(a)aventail.com>
writes:
>
> -BP> To merge the LDAP code, you would have to do a major overhaul
> -BP> of the existing database code, and I'm not sure you would be
> -BP> able to get the full power of LDAP without making the
> -BP> 'normal' databases pretty difficult to use.
>
> OK, that's why it might be hard. It still sounds like it's a good
> idea to me.
Perhaps, but I think that the code to do anything ldap-ish would
still look very ldap-ish as opposed to abstract-database-ish.
I agree with Bill. Abstract interfaces are a nice thing up to a
point, i.e. as long as they serve to us and not the other way around.
If LDAP serves a purpose totally different than a flat database, it's
quite fine to have a different interface for the two.