An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

[Philip Van Hoof]

On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 01:03 +0200, P. Kaluza wrote:
> Havoc Pennington wrote:

> >Most LDAP servers have an extension for it you can dynamically check for
> >and use. IIRC there was a standard extension in progress at one point, I
> >don't know if it's been finalized.
 
> The IETF workgroup chartered with that produced some drafts (by now 
> expired), but AFAIK nothing more yet. The OpenLDAP coders came up with a 
> competing protocol suggestion called "LDAP Sync"¹. This is geared 
> towards server- as well as client-replicas, including push notification, 
> so would IMHO quite fit DConf's needs. :-) Not that this is important 
> right now.

Sounds very useful indeed (and feel free to add information about this
on the wiki).

> >>However. It will work together with existing ACAP implementations.

> >Except nobody uses ACAP. This is the most irrelevant feature I can
> >imagine.

> Exactly. Philip, if you are aware of any ACAP deployments, could you 
> provide pointers ?

Well, I'd say if D-Conf uses ACAP, you can suddenly create many
deployments. And that will for sure increase the interest in the ACAP
specification.

Nevertheless you're right that it doesn't mean ACAP is a proven
specification whereas LDAP is. So 1 - 0 for LDAP :-)

But I'm not excluding LDAP. Just trying to get an idea of the different
systems that could be used (note that the diagrams on the wiki are just
drafts -- I know they have "ACAP"-stuff, these are just replaceable
ideas --).



-- 
Philip Van Hoof, Software Developer @ Cronos
home: me at pvanhoof dot be
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
work: philip dot vanhoof at cronos dot be
junk: philip dot vanhoof at gmail dot com
http://www.pvanhoof.be/