[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

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.