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

Re: [ldap] Re: How to think in schemas?

Mark H. Wood 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?"

Yes, thank you, that's specifically what I meant.

>>>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?

Yes, exactly, again. Please allow me to route all my messages through you for editing. :)