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

[Aaron <aaron@justaaron.com>]

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.  :)

--
Aaron
aaron@justaaron.com