Neil Joseph Schelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday 14 February 2006 10:43 pm, Paul Lussier wrote: >> Neil Schelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Just a thought, but how about an LDAP schema to support your options and >> > an LDAP server to do the backend. They were designed to be exactly: >> >> IMO, LDAP is almost never the right answer, regardless of the question :) > > > I guess I'm a little idealistic - I'd love to see LDAP more > mainstream because it really does a lot of things really well,
Like what? It's got a horrendous schema architecture, it's not easy to configure, insert data, access data, etc. It does a lousy job of managing relational data. About the thing it's good for is connecting to with a client that already support it. In almost all cases, I think it would be better to have clients access a relational db, had they been designed to do so. LDAP was a paired down version of something already grown out of control. > if not for lack of support in some ways. That said, it's not much > different than BDB if you're using a BDB backend I suppose. In that case, it's really nothing more than a network accessible front end for BDB. But it's not BDB that's the problem, it's the LDAP architecture. > For this purpose though, it sounds like the request is for a > network-accessible BDB database. OpenLDAP can be that, with full > access control abilities already integrated, fun admin tools like > phpLDAPAdmin, etc. No need to reinvent the wheel I was > thinking... Not re-inventing the wheel is a good thing, using one with 4 corners is :) -- Seeya, Paul _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss