directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ersin Er" <ersin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ApacheDS partition implementation based on Relational Model
Date Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:58:27 GMT
Hi,

On 11/2/06, David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org> wrote:
> Ersin Er wrote:
>
> > I need some advice on implementing a partition for ADS based on the
> > relational model and using SQL or Hibernate or JPA, or framework like
> > them..
>
> First the $64,000 question : WHY ?

Well, this is just a test currently. It's a software engineering
project for two students to make them familiar with all these (ldap,
rdbms, ADS, pragmatic tools, etc.) stuff. It can also be thought as a
DB research project to learn what the best way of storing directory
data on RDBMS is.

> > First of all, is this realistic? Can we reach a usable result?
>
> Yes, but experience shows that it's typlically not worth the trouble.
> There are two common reasons for wanting such a thing:
>
> 1. 'Datastore envy' : 'I want all my data in Oracle' (because Larry says
> so).
>
> 2. Adapting existing data (hey, all our HR stuff is in an Oracle database
> underneath Peoplesoft, let's expose that using LDAP).
>
> The trouble with #1 is that once whoever it is that's asking
> is told the cost and hassle involved vs just using a perfectly
> working LDAP server that already exists, they tend to forget
> their datastore envy.
>
> The trouble with #2 is that it turns into an object relational mapping
> science project. Very hard to say in advance what kinds of mapping
> are needed without seeing the use cases. So it tends to deflate into
> 'well we can write some custom hack for each individual customer'
> and 'hmm...syncing the data using a metadirectory solution is much
> easier'.
>
> > Can we leverage the power of SQL SELECT for LDAP search operations?
>
> The simplest way to do it is to construct tables that look just like the
> b-tree relations used in a custom LDAP data store. However this doesn't
> goal achieve #2 above.

Can you explain this more?

>
> There have been some successful LDAP server products that
> _only_ used the relational database store technique : IBM had one
> and so did(does?) Oracle.

Thanks.

-- 
Ersin

Mime
View raw message