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

Re: How to think in schemas?

Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Adam Williams wrote:
> > For example, in an RDB with "people" data, you might fully normalize the
> > schema so that there is one and only one record for a household's
> > address, and then associate each person that lives at that address as
> > separate records with a foreign key to the address record.  Or,
> > depending on needs, you might denormalize that design, so that each
> > person's record includes its own copy of the address data.
> Totally irrelevant;  LDAP is not a relational database.  If you need a
> relational model with constraints and foriegn keys, etc... use a
> relational database.

I think the unspoken question here is, obviously, "what are the important
and useful tradeoffs in designing X.500-like schemas?  What are some good
ways of thinking about directory object classes?"

> > If you didn't know anything at all about RDBs, you could find many books
> > and other references that cover issues like that for RDBs.  Probably
> > none to few cover similar issues for ldap schemas.
> I wouldn't expect them too.

Books on RDBs, no.  But has no one ever written a book on directories
which discusses schema design issues?

(Now, if only I had answers to these questions!)

- -- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mwood@IUPUI.Edu
MS Windows *is* user-friendly, but only for certain values of "user".
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/