Re: LDAP application intelligence

[Sri.Subramanian@software.com (Sri Subramanian)]

On re-reading my posting, I should clarify something:

By application intelligence, I am referring to the approach that, say,
Netscape has adopted in providing plug-ins. Other terms are "Server-side
intelligence" and "Stored Procedures".  It is in that frame of mind that
I was likening it to OODBs. Is there no effort to standardize such
features in LDAP?

(Haven't Java proponents asked about storing Java bytecode as an
operational attribute or some such and executing it when doing an
ldap_add, ldap_modify or ldap_delete to achieve the same effect?)

Sri Subramanian wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I've had this burning question ever since I started to work on LDAP.
> 
> The thread on implementing referential integrity is somewhat pertinent
> to this question. Since a Directory is a distributed data repository and
> a lot of commercial applications are starting to use Directories, the
> "goodness" of this data is important to the success of the application.
> Yet, none of the standards talk about implementing application-mandated
> constraints on the data. Is that then to be viewed as an implementation
> issue? Or is the provisioning client expected to "know"?
> 
> Example of such constraints are in implementing referential integrity,
> implementing new sytaxes (like enums) before they become standardized,
> blessing attribute values when, say, there is a relationship between two
> attributes in an entry.
> 
> Looking at OODBs, couldn't application intelligence be viewed as a
> natural extension of describing data in Directories? If this question is
> passé and has been beaten to death somewhere else, my apologies, and I'd
> appreciate a pointer.
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
|  Sri Subramanian                        Software.Com       |
|  Phone: (805)957-1790 x518         http://www.software.com |
--------------------------------------------------------------