Rosetta Code is being used as source material in a research project! Preview the paper. Discussions on Reddit and Y Combinator --Michael Mol

Greetings, /., long time no see! See the sidebar on the left for interesting links. And remember, this is a wiki; you can participate, too! --Michael Mol (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Active Directory/Connect

From Rosetta Code
Jump to: navigation, search

This task has only 1 example, for more than 8 months.

It just oriented for Windows programming. And Active Directory does not exist anymore. (See Wikipedia, now it's Active Directory Domain Services)

Probaly, this VBScript example it's not working anymore.

Most languages can't do this, a "Omit" most be do in more than 70% of RC langugaes.

Should it be deleted (With Search for a User in Active Directory)? --Guga360 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since they're so limited and especially if they're obsolete, I wouldn't be opposed to deleting them. I've never even heard of active directory anyway :p. --Mwn3d 21:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel these tasks should be removed. I don't have any really solid justification though. How about this: Since Active Directory is not AFAIK a widely-implemented and used protocol, these tasks would not show much that is informative about the languages they would be implemented in. (However, I don't want to also justify removing e.g. XML, SOAP, SQL ... tasks -- I think the distinction should be that if there is enough interest that the libraries for doing the protocol/whatever are in competition or otherwise refined to fit well with many languages, then it's reasonable to include such tasks in RC.) --Kevin Reid 22:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC), waving hands vigorously
Agree. These tasks haven't (hadn't?) any attractiveness (to me). --ShinTakezou 22:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. Sure the task needs a little refinement to keep up with modern terminology, but that's hardly that hard for someone who knows it. More seriously, we need to encourage someone with more Win coding chops (well, more than me) to do a second implementation. It must be possible to do; I believe it's not much more than LDAP... —Dkf 00:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
My day (and night, and every hour in between, lately) job is Win32 coding. I could give it a crack when work slacks off, but I'll have to do it in off time at the office since I've only got Linux at home. (And I'll have to learn LDAP, but there's no harm in that, really.) --Short Circuit 02:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that there's no harm in LDAP, or at least not unless your query model is about at the level that could be supported with an /etc/passwd file anyway. For auth, that's not a big deal. For anything more complex... excuse me, but I need to lie down. —Dkf 10:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Description

where is the description of this problem ? 200.144.37.3 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's the the title. You're supposed to guess what to do from there it seems. (Why not try writing a description of the task? That will no doubt help...) –Donal Fellows 12:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Somebody please write a description, each task has one. Thanks. --190.51.100.206 19:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Community
Explore
Misc
Toolbox