pmooney.net

1 - Paul,

Is Colm an authoritative IBM source? Robert Boccadoro questions him just a few posts later ({ Link }

I'm as eager to see it as anyone, but as far as I know, the plan has been 1.0.2 around end-of-year since Connections first shipped. I know there's public documentation on that somewhere.

Was Colm's pronouncement that it's "set in stone" from an authoritative source?

2 - I posted what they told us yesterday, 1.0.2 was the listed portion.

3 - Axel - I have a site that has postponed the install due to this.
And its in the real world.

4 - How many organizations in the real world are using Domino LDAP? I have the impression that openLDAP or MS Active Directory are far more common.
Given the fact that Connections is very new and its mostly developers who are investigating its capabilities, I even think that support for Apache Directory Server is more important than Domino LDAP support as it easier to setup for a lot of people.

5 - @3 - Every organization on the planet that's running Domino 6 or later is using Domino LDAP. It's built into the product and it's required on your admin server for your directory.

I don't think anyone complaining about lack of Domino LDAP support is trying to suggest that OTHER directories should be ignored. I haven't seen anyone at all say that.

The argument is just that Lotus's MOST COMMONLY DEPLOYED DIRECTORY ought not to be left out.

6 - @1 - You are definitely correct Nathan.
1.0.1 has always been announced as the first version with support for local languages. Domino LDAP support was set in 1.0.2 since the beginning.
I do not know Colm, but he said 2 wrong things ( 1.0.1 and that this was "set in stone").
Paul, I know there are many authoritative sources non-IBMers out there (and you're one of them) , but probably before taking someone's words as truth a quick check with someone from IBM would do no harm.
RoB

7 - Sorry,

I wouldn't call myself an LDAP expert, but...

...a lot of organizations using Domino have another LDAP server as their primer corporate LDAP server. And there might be good reason. Though there is a LDAP standard (or more exactly different versions of a standard), the capabilities of the LDAP server products differ regarding scalability, robustness, bonus features, etc.
So a lot of organizations who do use Domino 6 or 7, do not perceive it as an LDAP server as they use another.
We may play the consultant game and call them stupid for having 2 LDAP environments. But again: They might have good reasons to use openLDAP, MS Active Directory or another product for the needs of naming and directory services inside their whole IT infrastructure. And on the same time happily using Domino for Mail, Collaborative Apps, Workflow, etc. Domino supports a wide range of services. It can't and doesn't need to win any battle against each more narrowly specialized tool.

I would like to know 1 real world case in which Connections adoption was postponed or canceled, because Domino LDAP wasn't supported before 1.02 release.

As a developer interested in Connections I tend to look first at specialiced lightweight products as Apache DS, because they are simpler to integrate in automated tests.
Of course, the more LDAP products to be supported for production the better. But for me it doesn't make big difference if its supported for release 1.01 or 1.02.

regards Axel