Re: talks at meetings

[Jama Poulsen <jama@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 01:09:36PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 12:39:10PM +0100, Jama Poulsen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:11:51PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:09:28PM +0100, Jama Poulsen wrote:
> 
> >>>   - OpenLDAP directory management and applications
> 
> >> Would actually like something like this, in the direction of having
> >> a shared address book, plus personal, per-user address books, for a
> >> company.
> 
> > I'll see if I can present this. Not sure yet about the setup for the
> > per-user address books in OpenLDAP.
> 
> Well, OpenLDAP probably can create / manage more than one hierarchy
> ("database"). So, creating one per user is a possibility. Or simply
> add a field "belongs_to" and have the client make the request
> "belongs_to='lionel'".

I was thinking about an 'addressbook' subentry per user, I've seen some
discussion about this on the openldap list. Not sure if this is actually
usable right now. A database per user seems a bit over the top to me.

> The biggest problem is actually something else, IMHO: Popular email
> software doesn't support *updating* an LDAP directory, only querying
> it.

True; Kmail/Kontact (using kaddressbook), and Mutt have no write support
yet AFAIK. Evolution has something, but that needs some improvements
(http://www.gnome.org/bounties/Addressbook.php3#127525).
Mozilla thunderbird is also not capacle of writing to an LDAP directory
(judging from a quick browse on their site).

<fast forward to 2008>
An interesting thing with subentries per user can be to read/write
the ~/.<config> files to the users LDAP home instead of the local
filesystem, and use a caching mechanism.

Each application would then need to have an LDAP schema of
the configuration data. Then even other software could read/edit
that information. Even later we could see mergers of schema's
within application groups...

Jama Poulsen