[PLUG] Re: FOSS Cal and Sched -- Re: Governor backs plan to aid open source movment

Pete Lancashire nix at petelancashire.com
Thu Jan 27 03:33:00 UTC 2005


On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 18:49, Mark Allyn wrote:
> I agree that re-invetion of what is already out there would be a waste.
> 
> Would it be within the scope of the new Beaverton center to try to bring
> these projects together?
> 
> I can see something in the line of a full evaluation of what is already
> there and the possibly creating any necessary 'glues' to put these
> together to form something that is easily plug/play and yet robust.
> 
> I am curious, I see that there is some sentiment that LDAP on the back
> end may not be suitable.



> What would be a suitable back end storage of calendar and adressbook
> type data?
> 
> I though that LDAP would be ideal as it can be used for authentication
> as well.
> 
> Would a better solution be a relational database such as postgres/my/sql
> for the data and ldap/kerberos for authentication?

I agree, keep out of LDAPs DB.

I wish i had saved it, I had a report on a big company, I remember
something over 20,000 desktops. And the size of the cal/sked database.
Wow ... Think of what it must look like at IBM.

To me, it should use ANSI SQL. Keep it down to the basics. This would
allow one to use everything from tinySQL, MySQL, or if the company was
an 'Oracle Shop', then Oracle, or IIS. Remember at may companies it is
not technology that wins, it is who sales team wears the most expensive
suits, and gives out the most Blazer tickets. Back to technology :)

LDAP would work, but I wouldn't want to clutter LDAP's database with
transitory things. Think Windows registry.

To even simplify it, embed or distribute it with a small DB engine,
tinySQL or something like that, or something like DB4.

And don't forget, the most important, totally transparent
import/conversion from MS. It has to be there.

-pete




More information about the PLUG mailing list