On Wednesday 15 February 2006 09:11 am, Paul Lussier wrote: > > 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. Like a listing of data that updates rarely but is needed for quick querying. Like any type of data like this that can be arranged/organized hierarchically. The schema architecture makes a lot of sense for directory purposes and while it's a little complicated at first, a good book and a good how-to online can clear up that hurdle. Configuring it really only requires a prerequisite knowledge of how you want to use it and inserting/accessing data has never struck me as the least bit confusing.
> It does a lousy job of managing relational data. It's not a relational DBMS. It isn't meant to be. I thought this conversation was about a registry-type of storage mechanism and the registry is a perfect example a data store that is not relational in nature (whether or not it's a good idea is another question, but it really doesn't make sense for it to be relational). > 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. That's what said about "network-accessible BDB" and exactly what I mean about re-inventing the wheel. Why program a new interface for a network accessible, hierarchical datastore based on BDB (or any other backend) when that's what LDAP was designed for? -Neil _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss