Still picking my jaw up off the floor from this comment from Alex @ the ApacheDS project on Jeff Bohren's blog.
Seems Dave Kearns noticed it as well. :-)
So for those of you worried that Jeff and I might never agree on anything, you can put your worries to rest. Jeff's response is right on target...
Being that I'm responsible for both our OID and OVD product lines here at Oracle, I see first-hand that our customers are seeking very different things from directories vs. virtual directories.
With directories, it's all about data management. How can I scale and manage a repository that can store all of my identity information with the same kind of security that I get from my transactional data.
With virtual directories, it's much different. It's about lightweight integration, minimizing infrastructure changes, minimizing code changes, reducing project risks, and providing the flexibility that helps make both application deployments and identity management deployments successful.
It's not either-or, it's 100% complimentary.
Oh, and I'm wondering if Alex's comment means that I should be saying I'm sorry to my customers for solving their problems without ApacheDS's forthcoming "real" virtual directory. :-)
