directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [LDAP DAS] Clarification
Date Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:36:58 GMT
Ole Ersoy a écrit :

> Hey Guys,
>
> I just read my mail over again:
>
> ===========================================
>
> Just wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on handling updates
>
> to Java beans (Service Data Objects - but basically the same thing) 
> persisted with ADS.
> ===========================================
>
> I think instead of saying "Persisted with ADS",
> I should have said:
>
> "Using ADS as their persistance/storage solution"
>
> So for instance we might have an Eclipse App.
>
> The Eclipse App uses some Javabeans (SDOs) to store info.
>
> Then when the App needs to do a save, it would use the LDAP DAS
> to persist it's attributes and references  to ADS.
>
> ADS  would then persist this entry to whatever backend ADS uses.

Well, that's a totally different story then :)

You have to know that Ldap Server is able to store plain java objects, 
so maybe you don't really need to store attributes one by one, nor to 
declare a full new schema based on the object's memebers. Have a look at 
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2713.html. ADS implements this RFC. Doing so 
will be at least an order of magnitude faster, I think.

>
> So the beans (SDOs) are writing to ADS.
>
> ADS then writes to its backend.
>
> Does that make more sense?

Yeah. ADS will be the backend. I think that doing a very simple 
experiment is a matter of a few days, and I would be *very* interesting 
if you could do such a test.

I just don't know if ADS could be fatser than a RDB to do that, if you 
consider that ADS will be able to read around 400 req/s on a standard 
computer (3Ghz, mono cpu)

Go for it, Ole !

>
> Thanks,
> - Ole
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message