[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: OpenLDAP SQL Backend
According to Predrag Balorda:
> Should a generic SQL interface be integrated with back-ldbm
> or implemented as a separate back-lsql?
I think the intent of the back-ldbm was to permit a broad range of DB
implementations, including SQL-style. That said, I'm not sure that SQL
itself (I am no expert here) lends itself to being twisted into the
shape required by SLAPD, certainly not to the extent that Berkeley DB
did. I cannot comment on the ODBC aspect, as I have yet to see an
implementation of anything ODBC that did not cost too much :-)
SQL itself I have no warm feelings for, it strikes me as a nightmare
from the depth of line-oriented mainframe hell.
I think the UMich approach was sensible: designing to a particular,
specialised objective, and I would consider efforts toward producing an
extremely efficient back end to be a considerably better investment.
> Or to demistify it a bit - what about writing a PostgreSQL interface for
> back-ldbm. Actually I'd be happy if we could do a propper ODBC-compliant
> back-ldbm interface. Thoughts...
I'm currently sitting between miniSQL and SLAPD and trying to figure
out which one would serve my immediate purposes better. I'd like to
see a mixture of the two, somehow, possibly PostgreSQL rather than
mSQL, but they seem philosophically antithetical. Not being well
schooled in DBs to any extent, I may however be missing some important
point. I'm always ready to listen, though.