Just updating the list with the latest mail. Anything pointing me in the right direction would be appreciated.
BR / Johan Asterholm 2007/1/22, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
oh... I don't see a path to solve your problem in a couple of days. Woudl it be a couple of weeks, may be... Anyone ? Sorry :( On 1/22/07, Johan Asterholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > Hi, > > Basically i have a couple of days to solve this so its quite urgent for > me. > > BR / Johan > > > 2007/1/22, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > ok, get it. So you want your application to be the backend, basically. > > > > I know this is possible, but I think you will have to implemant > > something like 11 interfaces to make it works. > > > > Hopefully, Alex may give you more informations about it. I also have > > to look at this part, and ths could be the perfect occasion. > > > > Is this urgent ? > > > > On 1/22/07, Johan Asterholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Im interesting in using ADS as a mapping between LDAP and my > > > application. to get LDAP support. so basically just the frontend. > > > > > > I have looked arround for examples on how to write the backend but i > > > havent realy found soemthing usefull. > > > > > > BR / Johan Asterholm > > > > > > > > > 2007/1/22, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > ok. > > > > > > > > But do you need ADS at all? Or are you just interested by storing > > > > DNs into a backend ? > > > > > > > > On 1/22/07, Johan Asterholm < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > By backend can store up to several milion records but its quite > > > > > fast in answering (about ~20 MS) when having 2 milion records. The > > > > > application will handle caching itself so no caching wold be necessary. > > > > > Basically what I'm looking for is just an example for writing my backend. > > > > > > > > > > BR / Johan Asterholm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2007/1/22, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > the backend is using its own structure atm. It's based on > > > > > > JDBM, which is a B-tree storage. > > > > > > > > > > > > The DN are also stored in a B-Tree, and this is not > > > > > > necessarily optimal. We may want to go for a H-tree instead of a B-tree for > > > > > > these DN (B-tree and H-tree storages are available in JDBM) > > > > > > > > > > > > So basically, it's just a question to associate a H-tree to > > > > > > the DN storage. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, this is theory. In the 'real world', this would need more > > > > > > analysis, and we must evaluate the impact of such a modification on the code > > > > > > base. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I have a question : how big is your data set ? If it's a > > > > > > few thousnads, there would be a very little increase in performance doing > > > > > > that : you have to consider that the cache system will very quickly keep in > > > > > > memory all the DN of your database. (you might want to increase the cache > > > > > > size for this kind of objects in your partition : > > > > > > ... > > > > > > <property name="indexedAttributes"> > > > > > > <set> > > > > > > <bean class=" > > > > > > org.apache.directory.server.core.partition.impl.btree.MutableIndexConfiguration > > > > > > "> > > > > > > <property name="attributeId" value=" > > > > > > 1.3.6.1.4.1.18060.0.4.1.2.1" /> > > > > > > <property name="cacheSize" value="100" /> > > > > > > </bean> > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > In this default configuration, 100 DNs are kept into the > > > > > > cache. Just increase it to fit your needs. > > > > > > > > > > > > If in cache, grabbing a DN is really fast, wether you use > > > > > > H-tree or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > You will just have to consider if this would be of interest to > > > > > > modify the backend (with all the burden it suppose) instead of increasing > > > > > > the cache. And this is again a question of how many DN will you have. > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this help. > > > > > > > > > > > > Feel free to go further, we really have this Hashing in our > > > > > > radar. > > > > > > > > > > > > Emmanuel > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/22/07, Johan Asterholm < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm trying to develop LDAP integration towards an > > > > > > > application, but I have a hard time to understand how it all should work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To learn how it should be done I'm trying to develop a > > > > > > > backend which works towards a HashMap where the hash Map includes a key > > > > > > > (Identifier) And then another hashmap with attributes (They are not > > > > > > > "Attributes" but simply String names of the attribute). I prefer this way > > > > > > > since this is quite similar to what i need to do when integrating towards or > > > > > > > application. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so searching for uid=1,ou=user,cn=example,cn=com would > > > > > > > point to a row in the hashmap, but ou=user,cn=example,cn=com is static. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there any example where a simple backend like this is > > > > > > > done? Maybe not with a HashMap but something similar? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This would help me tremendously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR / Johan Asterholm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Cordialement, > > > > > > Emmanuel Lécharny > > > > > > www.iktek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Cordialement, > > > > Emmanuel Lécharny > > > > www.iktek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cordialement, > > Emmanuel Lécharny > > www.iktek.com > > > > -- Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
