On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 09:21 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 04:42, Ben Martin wrote: > > On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 22:39 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > > LDAP, fine - it's designed as 'the one true data', but it can be > > > coerced, just about, into handling per-person data, even if getting > > > updates is a pain. > > > > If you dig way way back into the GConf archives, probably a few years, > > you should find a patch that provides an LDAP backend. It is written for > > GConf 1.x but shouldn't be too hard to port across. I don't think I had > > notifications working in it, it was a first patch for read/writing > > values into LDAP which didn't seem to get interest at the time. It has > > been since mentioned that it would be an acceptable patch for GConf but > > my interest in updating it has since been usurped by other projects. > > Kris Rietveld also started another implementation more recently: > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107926 > > Cheers, > Mark. Good to see that the idea of an LDAP backend is still being hacked on, though that bugzilla page doesn't seem to have many updates :/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part