[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Updating a private schema (cn=config)?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Updating a private schema (cn=config)?
- From: Andrzej Jan Taramina <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:00:24 -0500
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: Chaeron Corporation
- References: <email@example.com>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 18.104.22.168 (Windows/20081105)
Exactly. "database" != "RDBMS", no matter how much the RDBMS folks
like to claim otherwise.
According to Wikipedia:
"A database is a structured collection of records or data that is stored in a computer system. The structure is achieved
by organizing the data according to a database model. The model in most common use today is the relational model. Other
models such as the hierarchical model and the network model use a more explicit representation of relationships."
So I suppose technically a ldif-formatted flat file does fit the definition of a "database". But I think you guys are
splitting hairs, the red flag indicator being someone mentioning "sparking a semantic war".
As for RDBMS's, they do have their place. I tend to prefer XML databases these days for many applications. It would be
interesting to see an LDAP interface put on top of an XML database, though I doubt that is worth doing or will happen.
What you've described is similar to the original design, 3 years ago, but it
proved unworkable. You can read through the openldap-devel archives from that
time period for more background on the decisions. As I recall, we ran into
trouble with schema extensions and a few other elements that didn't lend
themselves well to being treated as distinct attributes.
Pity. Then again, times change and new solutions to old problems sometimes surface, so decisions made that long ago are
worth revisiting sometimes. 3 years is a long time in technological terms.
As for reading the archives, in my copious spare time, right? ;-)
You should learn a bit more about why and how things work, before suggesting
they be changed.
I did not suggest that they be changed, Howard. Try re-reading my post. I only suggested that had the outlined, more
granular attribute structure, been implemented, I would have agreed with you about the "ease of use" issue.
You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder, Howard, though that might just be the typical email impedence mismatch
issue and a mis-interpretation on my part. Regardless, not exactly conducive to attracting new involvement in the
OpenLDAP project from other people who might have something to contribute, IMO.
'nuff said from me on this topic.
Chaeron Corporation: Enterprise System Solutions