Subject RE: [IB-Architect] Re: Is it _really_ necessary to expose the
Author Madsen, Kim-Bo (CPHVN)
From one lurker to another :)

4) What about a small footprint IB server process which is installed on one
server and are used only for delegating client requests. Probably alot like
a LDAP server, but much easier to install and maintain and based on the IB
itself. Then all the client would need to know is the hostname of that
delegating server (and an optional backup server). In future even user
security and authorization could be delegated from that server.

best regards

Kim Madsen

-----Original Message-----
From: Solon Edmunds [mailto:solon@...]
Sent: 9. august 2000 05:03
Subject: [IB-Architect] Re: Is it _really_ necessary to expose the

First - I don't post often, I consider myself a lurker, still learning if
you like.. this is only 0.2c
But I just had to say something about this latest thread!

First the $ alias thing - having the $ is great, not having it leads to
ambiguity in your code as to what was meant, right?
And what disadvantage would we trade for that ?10ms? performance hit, that
many people (wouldn't you rather use an alias?) will use most of the time?

Second - my take on the implementation options -

1) Windows registry.
NO - platform specific while most/many people will use Linux or Solaris

2) ibconfig.
hmm. good except, as Bill said, no read security

3) LDAP server.
The pros/cons of LDAP failed to mention that this is only an enterprise
level solution, and many many developers will not have a directory server!!!
(Feedback please - Is this correct)

4) more ideas.. maybe a seperate store.. that gets installed with ibconfig
or as add on download for existing installations..

the idea of using more than one implementation, dns style, in order is good,
but if i've got a choice installing a LDAP server (ie no option at all for
many developers) or exposing my private paths, i'll hard code the string and
be done with it!

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: