Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to platformsdk.adsi?

Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to platformsdk.adsi?

Post by Eric Sassaman [MS » Thu, 06 Dec 2001 08:31:00



Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to active.directory.interfaces?

Hello, I'm Eric Sassaman, Forum Manager for the Windows SDK related
newsgroups at Microsoft. In a tiny nutshell, my job is to help the Windows
programmer community, primarily in the newsgroups.

One of the problems we have is the proliferation of various ADSI/LDAP
programming-related newsgroups. I wanted to get your feedback on what, if
anything, should be done.

The problem is that the ADSI programmer community is a bit scattered
(microsoft.public. omitted for brevity):

- adsi.general
- active.directory.interfaces
- platformsdk.adsi
- platformsdk.active.directory

Here are the choices:
* Leave everything as-is. The status quo is fairly confusing as there is no
obvious difference between these groups by looking at the names, other than
possibly the .general newsgroup, which doesn't sound very programming
related. Having so many means more newsgroups to watch if you're a
"regular". However, less disruption and change if we leave things the way
they are.

* Migrate to active.directory.interfaces. This is more active than the two
platformsdk newsgroups combined and seems to me to be clearly about
programming the active dir interfaces.

* Migrate to platformsdk.adsi and platformsdk.active.directory. The problem
here is that we are trying to deprecate some of the groups in the
platformsdk tree and don't want to push more people to that tree. The naming
is bad as well as the Platform SDK has been renamed to "Windows SDK" so
newbies may not have any idea what "platformsdk" is.  However it is clearly
a programming newsgroup, but a little confusing to have two related to ADSI
with no apparent difference between them. Traffic levels are a bit low in
these newsgroups as well.

* Migrate to adsi.general. If you enjoy reading about programming *and*
non-programming, admin/configuration type issues, maybe we should all post
in adsi.general and not a programming specific group. On the flip side we
can move to have adsi.general be primarily non-programming issues and one of
the others above for the programming issues, to separate the two groups and
clarify the newsgroups' focus.

Let me know what you think. The goal here is to try to reduce some of the
confusion brought about by having too many newsgroups related to ADSI/LDAP
programming questions and discussions. Reguardless of which way we go, I
will be regularly posting some info to help clarify the best place to go for
help for each newsgroup. BTW for MSDN subscribers currently getting MS
support in the newsgroups, that support will move to the newsgroup you guys
vote for here.

-Eric Sassaman
Microsoft Support
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 
 
 

Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to platformsdk.adsi?

Post by Andy Web » Thu, 06 Dec 2001 12:18:09


active.directory.interfaces is the first group alphabetically in your list,
and so with the obvious confusion, it's the easiest to find - at least on my
OE list.  It's not completely clear what the purpose is here.

adsi.general does not come across to me as a general Active Directory group
because it's name is ADSI, which indicates we're programming.

I agree with your thoughts on the platformsdk groups.

It might be more clear if what we had, based on the discussion so far, a set
of groups like:

activedirectory.general
activedirectory.development (or programming or scripting or ...)

If the volume dictates it, then a further logical breakdown within the same
structure might be:

activedirectory.integration
activedirectory.admin
activedirectory.setup

But those are largely covered by the general group I think.

You might note I left the intermediate "." out.  Adding additional levels to
the hierarchy just to make it semantically prettier is really annoying.
Where the Microsoft groups have been replicated onto public news servers,
you end up with postings at all the intermediate levels as well.
Unfortunately those posts never get addressed by the majority of the
respondents - they just get lost. Removing the extra, and very unnecessary
hierarchy would help with that issue.

--
--
=======================================================

-- Way to go USPS Cycling Team and Lance Armstrong!! --
=======================================================



Quote:> Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to

active.directory.interfaces?
Quote:

> Hello, I'm Eric Sassaman, Forum Manager for the Windows SDK related
> newsgroups at Microsoft. In a tiny nutshell, my job is to help the Windows
> programmer community, primarily in the newsgroups.

> One of the problems we have is the proliferation of various ADSI/LDAP
> programming-related newsgroups. I wanted to get your feedback on what, if
> anything, should be done.

> The problem is that the ADSI programmer community is a bit scattered
> (microsoft.public. omitted for brevity):

> - adsi.general
> - active.directory.interfaces
> - platformsdk.adsi
> - platformsdk.active.directory

> Here are the choices:
> * Leave everything as-is. The status quo is fairly confusing as there is
no
> obvious difference between these groups by looking at the names, other
than
> possibly the .general newsgroup, which doesn't sound very programming
> related. Having so many means more newsgroups to watch if you're a
> "regular". However, less disruption and change if we leave things the way
> they are.

> * Migrate to active.directory.interfaces. This is more active than the two
> platformsdk newsgroups combined and seems to me to be clearly about
> programming the active dir interfaces.

> * Migrate to platformsdk.adsi and platformsdk.active.directory. The
problem
> here is that we are trying to deprecate some of the groups in the
> platformsdk tree and don't want to push more people to that tree. The
naming
> is bad as well as the Platform SDK has been renamed to "Windows SDK" so
> newbies may not have any idea what "platformsdk" is.  However it is
clearly
> a programming newsgroup, but a little confusing to have two related to
ADSI
> with no apparent difference between them. Traffic levels are a bit low in
> these newsgroups as well.

> * Migrate to adsi.general. If you enjoy reading about programming *and*
> non-programming, admin/configuration type issues, maybe we should all post
> in adsi.general and not a programming specific group. On the flip side we
> can move to have adsi.general be primarily non-programming issues and one
of
> the others above for the programming issues, to separate the two groups
and
> clarify the newsgroups' focus.

> Let me know what you think. The goal here is to try to reduce some of the
> confusion brought about by having too many newsgroups related to ADSI/LDAP
> programming questions and discussions. Reguardless of which way we go, I
> will be regularly posting some info to help clarify the best place to go
for
> help for each newsgroup. BTW for MSDN subscribers currently getting MS
> support in the newsgroups, that support will move to the newsgroup you
guys
> vote for here.

> -Eric Sassaman
> Microsoft Support
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.


 
 
 

Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to platformsdk.adsi?

Post by Mark » Thu, 06 Dec 2001 16:28:05


As an admistrator that writes scripts I see ADSI in a different light from
other developers. Thus my habitation in platformsdk.adsi and adsi.general
and an ignorance of the others. What I'd really rather see is scripting.adsi
and scripting.wmi and such. Along with adsi.general, etc.
 
 
 

Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to platformsdk.adsi?

Post by Eric Sassaman [MS » Fri, 07 Dec 2001 06:07:10


Unfortunately creating new newsgroups is not an option at this point, since
it's practically impossible to delete the old ones. My thoughts on that are
that it would just make things more confusing, by adding yet more AD/ADSI
related newsgroups. I wish we could just kill the old ones and create a
better heirarchy. So we have to stick with the choices outlined in my post,
unfortunately.

I agree with not using a '.' to make newsgroup names look pretty :-) that
was a bad call on our part.

--
-Eric Sassaman
Microsoft Support
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.


> active.directory.interfaces is the first group alphabetically in your
list,
> and so with the obvious confusion, it's the easiest to find - at least on
my
> OE list.  It's not completely clear what the purpose is here.

> adsi.general does not come across to me as a general Active Directory
group
> because it's name is ADSI, which indicates we're programming.

> I agree with your thoughts on the platformsdk groups.

> It might be more clear if what we had, based on the discussion so far, a
set
> of groups like:

> activedirectory.general
> activedirectory.development (or programming or scripting or ...)

> If the volume dictates it, then a further logical breakdown within the
same
> structure might be:

> activedirectory.integration
> activedirectory.admin
> activedirectory.setup

> But those are largely covered by the general group I think.

> You might note I left the intermediate "." out.  Adding additional levels
to
> the hierarchy just to make it semantically prettier is really annoying.
> Where the Microsoft groups have been replicated onto public news servers,
> you end up with postings at all the intermediate levels as well.
> Unfortunately those posts never get addressed by the majority of the
> respondents - they just get lost. Removing the extra, and very unnecessary
> hierarchy would help with that issue.

> --
> --
> =======================================================

> -- Way to go USPS Cycling Team and Lance Armstrong!! --
> =======================================================



> > Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to
> active.directory.interfaces?

> > Hello, I'm Eric Sassaman, Forum Manager for the Windows SDK related
> > newsgroups at Microsoft. In a tiny nutshell, my job is to help the
Windows
> > programmer community, primarily in the newsgroups.

> > One of the problems we have is the proliferation of various ADSI/LDAP
> > programming-related newsgroups. I wanted to get your feedback on what,
if
> > anything, should be done.

> > The problem is that the ADSI programmer community is a bit scattered
> > (microsoft.public. omitted for brevity):

> > - adsi.general
> > - active.directory.interfaces
> > - platformsdk.adsi
> > - platformsdk.active.directory

> > Here are the choices:
> > * Leave everything as-is. The status quo is fairly confusing as there is
> no
> > obvious difference between these groups by looking at the names, other
> than
> > possibly the .general newsgroup, which doesn't sound very programming
> > related. Having so many means more newsgroups to watch if you're a
> > "regular". However, less disruption and change if we leave things the
way
> > they are.

> > * Migrate to active.directory.interfaces. This is more active than the
two
> > platformsdk newsgroups combined and seems to me to be clearly about
> > programming the active dir interfaces.

> > * Migrate to platformsdk.adsi and platformsdk.active.directory. The
> problem
> > here is that we are trying to deprecate some of the groups in the
> > platformsdk tree and don't want to push more people to that tree. The
> naming
> > is bad as well as the Platform SDK has been renamed to "Windows SDK" so
> > newbies may not have any idea what "platformsdk" is.  However it is
> clearly
> > a programming newsgroup, but a little confusing to have two related to
> ADSI
> > with no apparent difference between them. Traffic levels are a bit low
in
> > these newsgroups as well.

> > * Migrate to adsi.general. If you enjoy reading about programming *and*
> > non-programming, admin/configuration type issues, maybe we should all
post
> > in adsi.general and not a programming specific group. On the flip side
we
> > can move to have adsi.general be primarily non-programming issues and
one
> of
> > the others above for the programming issues, to separate the two groups
> and
> > clarify the newsgroups' focus.

> > Let me know what you think. The goal here is to try to reduce some of
the
> > confusion brought about by having too many newsgroups related to
ADSI/LDAP
> > programming questions and discussions. Reguardless of which way we go, I
> > will be regularly posting some info to help clarify the best place to go
> for
> > help for each newsgroup. BTW for MSDN subscribers currently getting MS
> > support in the newsgroups, that support will move to the newsgroup you
> guys
> > vote for here.

> > -Eric Sassaman
> > Microsoft Support
> > This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no
rights.

 
 
 

Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to platformsdk.adsi?

Post by Andy Web » Fri, 07 Dec 2001 12:49:44


Well, if you manage to minimize the use of one or two of the groups, what
will actually happen to the others?  I'm not sure how pushing people out of
two newsgroups is any harder or easier than pushing them out of four.  In
fact the Sharepoint folks just got rid of 6 and created two new ones.

But if the limitations are the limitations, I'd get rid of the platformsdk
groups.  That just leaves us with two groups that are of indeterminate
topic.

:)

--
--
=======================================================

-- Way to go USPS Cycling Team and Lance Armstrong!! --
=======================================================



> Unfortunately creating new newsgroups is not an option at this point,
since
> it's practically impossible to delete the old ones. My thoughts on that
are
> that it would just make things more confusing, by adding yet more AD/ADSI
> related newsgroups. I wish we could just kill the old ones and create a
> better heirarchy. So we have to stick with the choices outlined in my
post,
> unfortunately.

> I agree with not using a '.' to make newsgroup names look pretty :-) that
> was a bad call on our part.

> --
> -Eric Sassaman
> Microsoft Support
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.



> > active.directory.interfaces is the first group alphabetically in your
> list,
> > and so with the obvious confusion, it's the easiest to find - at least
on
> my
> > OE list.  It's not completely clear what the purpose is here.

> > adsi.general does not come across to me as a general Active Directory
> group
> > because it's name is ADSI, which indicates we're programming.

> > I agree with your thoughts on the platformsdk groups.

> > It might be more clear if what we had, based on the discussion so far, a
> set
> > of groups like:

> > activedirectory.general
> > activedirectory.development (or programming or scripting or ...)

> > If the volume dictates it, then a further logical breakdown within the
> same
> > structure might be:

> > activedirectory.integration
> > activedirectory.admin
> > activedirectory.setup

> > But those are largely covered by the general group I think.

> > You might note I left the intermediate "." out.  Adding additional
levels
> to
> > the hierarchy just to make it semantically prettier is really annoying.
> > Where the Microsoft groups have been replicated onto public news
servers,
> > you end up with postings at all the intermediate levels as well.
> > Unfortunately those posts never get addressed by the majority of the
> > respondents - they just get lost. Removing the extra, and very
unnecessary
> > hierarchy would help with that issue.

> > --
> > --
> > =======================================================

> > -- Way to go USPS Cycling Team and Lance Armstrong!! --
> > =======================================================



> > > Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to
> > active.directory.interfaces?

> > > Hello, I'm Eric Sassaman, Forum Manager for the Windows SDK related
> > > newsgroups at Microsoft. In a tiny nutshell, my job is to help the
> Windows
> > > programmer community, primarily in the newsgroups.

> > > One of the problems we have is the proliferation of various ADSI/LDAP
> > > programming-related newsgroups. I wanted to get your feedback on what,
> if
> > > anything, should be done.

> > > The problem is that the ADSI programmer community is a bit scattered
> > > (microsoft.public. omitted for brevity):

> > > - adsi.general
> > > - active.directory.interfaces
> > > - platformsdk.adsi
> > > - platformsdk.active.directory

> > > Here are the choices:
> > > * Leave everything as-is. The status quo is fairly confusing as there
is
> > no
> > > obvious difference between these groups by looking at the names, other
> > than
> > > possibly the .general newsgroup, which doesn't sound very programming
> > > related. Having so many means more newsgroups to watch if you're a
> > > "regular". However, less disruption and change if we leave things the
> way
> > > they are.

> > > * Migrate to active.directory.interfaces. This is more active than the
> two
> > > platformsdk newsgroups combined and seems to me to be clearly about
> > > programming the active dir interfaces.

> > > * Migrate to platformsdk.adsi and platformsdk.active.directory. The
> > problem
> > > here is that we are trying to deprecate some of the groups in the
> > > platformsdk tree and don't want to push more people to that tree. The
> > naming
> > > is bad as well as the Platform SDK has been renamed to "Windows SDK"
so
> > > newbies may not have any idea what "platformsdk" is.  However it is
> > clearly
> > > a programming newsgroup, but a little confusing to have two related to
> > ADSI
> > > with no apparent difference between them. Traffic levels are a bit low
> in
> > > these newsgroups as well.

> > > * Migrate to adsi.general. If you enjoy reading about programming
*and*
> > > non-programming, admin/configuration type issues, maybe we should all
> post
> > > in adsi.general and not a programming specific group. On the flip side
> we
> > > can move to have adsi.general be primarily non-programming issues and
> one
> > of
> > > the others above for the programming issues, to separate the two
groups
> > and
> > > clarify the newsgroups' focus.

> > > Let me know what you think. The goal here is to try to reduce some of
> the
> > > confusion brought about by having too many newsgroups related to
> ADSI/LDAP
> > > programming questions and discussions. Reguardless of which way we go,
I
> > > will be regularly posting some info to help clarify the best place to
go
> > for
> > > help for each newsgroup. BTW for MSDN subscribers currently getting MS
> > > support in the newsgroups, that support will move to the newsgroup you
> > guys
> > > vote for here.

> > > -Eric Sassaman
> > > Microsoft Support
> > > This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.

 
 
 

Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to platformsdk.adsi?

Post by Andy Web » Fri, 07 Dec 2001 15:08:33


Sorry - I got it backwards.

Looking back at your subject, you're suggesting we just use the platformsdk
groups and let the others fall by the wayside.  The split between
"active.directory" and "adsi" does seem to make sense.

--
--
=======================================================

-- Way to go USPS Cycling Team and Lance Armstrong!! --
=======================================================


> Well, if you manage to minimize the use of one or two of the groups, what
> will actually happen to the others?  I'm not sure how pushing people out
of
> two newsgroups is any harder or easier than pushing them out of four.  In
> fact the Sharepoint folks just got rid of 6 and created two new ones.

> But if the limitations are the limitations, I'd get rid of the platformsdk
> groups.  That just leaves us with two groups that are of indeterminate
> topic.

> :)

> --
> --
> =======================================================

> -- Way to go USPS Cycling Team and Lance Armstrong!! --
> =======================================================



> > Unfortunately creating new newsgroups is not an option at this point,
> since
> > it's practically impossible to delete the old ones. My thoughts on that
> are
> > that it would just make things more confusing, by adding yet more
AD/ADSI
> > related newsgroups. I wish we could just kill the old ones and create a
> > better heirarchy. So we have to stick with the choices outlined in my
> post,
> > unfortunately.

> > I agree with not using a '.' to make newsgroup names look pretty :-)
that
> > was a bad call on our part.

> > --
> > -Eric Sassaman
> > Microsoft Support
> > This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no
rights.



> > > active.directory.interfaces is the first group alphabetically in your
> > list,
> > > and so with the obvious confusion, it's the easiest to find - at least
> on
> > my
> > > OE list.  It's not completely clear what the purpose is here.

> > > adsi.general does not come across to me as a general Active Directory
> > group
> > > because it's name is ADSI, which indicates we're programming.

> > > I agree with your thoughts on the platformsdk groups.

> > > It might be more clear if what we had, based on the discussion so far,
a
> > set
> > > of groups like:

> > > activedirectory.general
> > > activedirectory.development (or programming or scripting or ...)

> > > If the volume dictates it, then a further logical breakdown within the
> > same
> > > structure might be:

> > > activedirectory.integration
> > > activedirectory.admin
> > > activedirectory.setup

> > > But those are largely covered by the general group I think.

> > > You might note I left the intermediate "." out.  Adding additional
> levels
> > to
> > > the hierarchy just to make it semantically prettier is really
annoying.
> > > Where the Microsoft groups have been replicated onto public news
> servers,
> > > you end up with postings at all the intermediate levels as well.
> > > Unfortunately those posts never get addressed by the majority of the
> > > respondents - they just get lost. Removing the extra, and very
> unnecessary
> > > hierarchy would help with that issue.

> > > --
> > > --
> > > =======================================================

> > > -- Way to go USPS Cycling Team and Lance Armstrong!! --
> > > =======================================================



> > > > Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to
> > > active.directory.interfaces?

> > > > Hello, I'm Eric Sassaman, Forum Manager for the Windows SDK related
> > > > newsgroups at Microsoft. In a tiny nutshell, my job is to help the
> > Windows
> > > > programmer community, primarily in the newsgroups.

> > > > One of the problems we have is the proliferation of various
ADSI/LDAP
> > > > programming-related newsgroups. I wanted to get your feedback on
what,
> > if
> > > > anything, should be done.

> > > > The problem is that the ADSI programmer community is a bit scattered
> > > > (microsoft.public. omitted for brevity):

> > > > - adsi.general
> > > > - active.directory.interfaces
> > > > - platformsdk.adsi
> > > > - platformsdk.active.directory

> > > > Here are the choices:
> > > > * Leave everything as-is. The status quo is fairly confusing as
there
> is
> > > no
> > > > obvious difference between these groups by looking at the names,
other
> > > than
> > > > possibly the .general newsgroup, which doesn't sound very
programming
> > > > related. Having so many means more newsgroups to watch if you're a
> > > > "regular". However, less disruption and change if we leave things
the
> > way
> > > > they are.

> > > > * Migrate to active.directory.interfaces. This is more active than
the
> > two
> > > > platformsdk newsgroups combined and seems to me to be clearly about
> > > > programming the active dir interfaces.

> > > > * Migrate to platformsdk.adsi and platformsdk.active.directory. The
> > > problem
> > > > here is that we are trying to deprecate some of the groups in the
> > > > platformsdk tree and don't want to push more people to that tree.
The
> > > naming
> > > > is bad as well as the Platform SDK has been renamed to "Windows SDK"
> so
> > > > newbies may not have any idea what "platformsdk" is.  However it is
> > > clearly
> > > > a programming newsgroup, but a little confusing to have two related
to
> > > ADSI
> > > > with no apparent difference between them. Traffic levels are a bit
low
> > in
> > > > these newsgroups as well.

> > > > * Migrate to adsi.general. If you enjoy reading about programming
> *and*
> > > > non-programming, admin/configuration type issues, maybe we should
all
> > post
> > > > in adsi.general and not a programming specific group. On the flip
side
> > we
> > > > can move to have adsi.general be primarily non-programming issues
and
> > one
> > > of
> > > > the others above for the programming issues, to separate the two
> groups
> > > and
> > > > clarify the newsgroups' focus.

> > > > Let me know what you think. The goal here is to try to reduce some
of
> > the
> > > > confusion brought about by having too many newsgroups related to
> > ADSI/LDAP
> > > > programming questions and discussions. Reguardless of which way we
go,
> I
> > > > will be regularly posting some info to help clarify the best place
to
> go
> > > for
> > > > help for each newsgroup. BTW for MSDN subscribers currently getting
MS
> > > > support in the newsgroups, that support will move to the newsgroup
you
> > > guys
> > > > vote for here.

> > > > -Eric Sassaman
> > > > Microsoft Support
> > > > This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.

 
 
 

Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to platformsdk.adsi?

Post by Jeremy Pullicin » Fri, 07 Dec 2001 21:46:49


Eric,

Glad to see this post.

I have been programming for AD in C++ since the early betas.
The more help MS give programmers on AD the more we could leverage its
immense power and integrate
it in our applications the way MS want us to (the proper way).

AD needs to be integrated by ALL 3rd party enterprise products developed for
W2K and .NET servers.
Products that are not AD enabled will not be able to compete against those
that are.

Given your options, I would chose the one that suits the developers best
since they need the newsgroups
as a source of information most.

Admins and other AD users have books, MCSEs and all the other stuff,
programmers have ONE book by MS,
and that has only just been released recently (I am still waiting for my
copy).

I trust that:

* Migrate to active.directory.interfaces. This is more active than the two
platformsdk newsgroups combined and seems to me to be clearly about
programming the active dir interfaces.

Is the best solution for programmers, and programmers are the ones who need
it most.

Jeremy.



Quote:> Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to

active.directory.interfaces?
Quote:

> Hello, I'm Eric Sassaman, Forum Manager for the Windows SDK related
> newsgroups at Microsoft. In a tiny nutshell, my job is to help the Windows
> programmer community, primarily in the newsgroups.

> One of the problems we have is the proliferation of various ADSI/LDAP
> programming-related newsgroups. I wanted to get your feedback on what, if
> anything, should be done.

> The problem is that the ADSI programmer community is a bit scattered
> (microsoft.public. omitted for brevity):

> - adsi.general
> - active.directory.interfaces
> - platformsdk.adsi
> - platformsdk.active.directory

> Here are the choices:
> * Leave everything as-is. The status quo is fairly confusing as there is
no
> obvious difference between these groups by looking at the names, other
than
> possibly the .general newsgroup, which doesn't sound very programming
> related. Having so many means more newsgroups to watch if you're a
> "regular". However, less disruption and change if we leave things the way
> they are.

> * Migrate to active.directory.interfaces. This is more active than the two
> platformsdk newsgroups combined and seems to me to be clearly about
> programming the active dir interfaces.

> * Migrate to platformsdk.adsi and platformsdk.active.directory. The
problem
> here is that we are trying to deprecate some of the groups in the
> platformsdk tree and don't want to push more people to that tree. The
naming
> is bad as well as the Platform SDK has been renamed to "Windows SDK" so
> newbies may not have any idea what "platformsdk" is.  However it is
clearly
> a programming newsgroup, but a little confusing to have two related to
ADSI
> with no apparent difference between them. Traffic levels are a bit low in
> these newsgroups as well.

> * Migrate to adsi.general. If you enjoy reading about programming *and*
> non-programming, admin/configuration type issues, maybe we should all post
> in adsi.general and not a programming specific group. On the flip side we
> can move to have adsi.general be primarily non-programming issues and one
of
> the others above for the programming issues, to separate the two groups
and
> clarify the newsgroups' focus.

> Let me know what you think. The goal here is to try to reduce some of the
> confusion brought about by having too many newsgroups related to ADSI/LDAP
> programming questions and discussions. Reguardless of which way we go, I
> will be regularly posting some info to help clarify the best place to go
for
> help for each newsgroup. BTW for MSDN subscribers currently getting MS
> support in the newsgroups, that support will move to the newsgroup you
guys
> vote for here.

> -Eric Sassaman
> Microsoft Support
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 
 
 

Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to platformsdk.adsi?

Post by Germa » Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:21:01


Oh, come on.
Kill three newsgroups and stay live one of them.
Everybody migrate by default :-))
PS: Actually really stuped when I'm post something in one newsgroup and my
message can read only 1/4 all ADSI-related programmers. Or I can put my
message in all 4 newsgroups (tipically I put it only 2, maybe 3 newsgroup).

--

Sincerely German
================
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Thomas
Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943



Quote:> Should the ADSI programmer community migrate to

active.directory.interfaces?
Quote:

> Hello, I'm Eric Sassaman, Forum Manager for the Windows SDK related
> newsgroups at Microsoft. In a tiny nutshell, my job is to help the Windows
> programmer community, primarily in the newsgroups.

> One of the problems we have is the proliferation of various ADSI/LDAP
> programming-related newsgroups. I wanted to get your feedback on what, if
> anything, should be done.

> The problem is that the ADSI programmer community is a bit scattered
> (microsoft.public. omitted for brevity):

> - adsi.general
> - active.directory.interfaces
> - platformsdk.adsi
> - platformsdk.active.directory

> Here are the choices:
> * Leave everything as-is. The status quo is fairly confusing as there is
no
> obvious difference between these groups by looking at the names, other
than
> possibly the .general newsgroup, which doesn't sound very programming
> related. Having so many means more newsgroups to watch if you're a
> "regular". However, less disruption and change if we leave things the way
> they are.

> * Migrate to active.directory.interfaces. This is more active than the two
> platformsdk newsgroups combined and seems to me to be clearly about
> programming the active dir interfaces.

> * Migrate to platformsdk.adsi and platformsdk.active.directory. The
problem
> here is that we are trying to deprecate some of the groups in the
> platformsdk tree and don't want to push more people to that tree. The
naming
> is bad as well as the Platform SDK has been renamed to "Windows SDK" so
> newbies may not have any idea what "platformsdk" is.  However it is
clearly
> a programming newsgroup, but a little confusing to have two related to
ADSI
> with no apparent difference between them. Traffic levels are a bit low in
> these newsgroups as well.

> * Migrate to adsi.general. If you enjoy reading about programming *and*
> non-programming, admin/configuration type issues, maybe we should all post
> in adsi.general and not a programming specific group. On the flip side we
> can move to have adsi.general be primarily non-programming issues and one
of
> the others above for the programming issues, to separate the two groups
and
> clarify the newsgroups' focus.

> Let me know what you think. The goal here is to try to reduce some of the
> confusion brought about by having too many newsgroups related to ADSI/LDAP
> programming questions and discussions. Reguardless of which way we go, I
> will be regularly posting some info to help clarify the best place to go
for
> help for each newsgroup. BTW for MSDN subscribers currently getting MS
> support in the newsgroups, that support will move to the newsgroup you
guys
> vote for here.

> -Eric Sassaman
> Microsoft Support
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 
 
 

1. Migrating from ADSI 2.5+WinNT4.0+Exch5.5 to Win2k+ADSI+Exch2k

I have a service that manipulates NT and exchange accounts using ADSI
on WinNT 4.0 and Exchange5.5. Will it be compatible with Win2k and
Exchange2K? Does Exchange2k provide implementations for ADSI for
account manipulation (create,update and delete)?

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

2. unkillable mail processes

3. PlatformSDK: ADSI within other development languages

4. looking for sample

5. ADSI 2.5 or ADSI Run-time????

6. Win2K roaming profiles

7. IIS Admin issues => microsoft.public.platformsdk.adsi.iis-admin

8. CMYK color

9. ADSI and MDAC

10. Emails with ADSI.DAT as recipient

11. ADSI Tool

12. SharePoint and ADSI

13. ADSI