Good point Robb. LDAP needs a database to operate (its an access protocol)
and is not a database in itself.
>
> From: Robb Penoyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/09/11 Thu PM 03:29:02 EDT
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Apache Incubator Directory Proposal] From the incubator list
>
>
> Forgive the cutting and pasting of the mail notes below - but that is the
> background. I really wanted to respond to Brian, and since Alex mentioned
> my name.
>
> LDAPd is a java implementation of and v3 compliant LDAP server, and
> hopefulyl will soon enter the Apache Incubator as the/part of the Apache
> Directory candidate.
>
> In the classical sense, LDAP really isn't a database, but it needs one to
> work - like everything else in the world. the primary difference is
> transactions, it doesn't have any, nor do the standard require them. To
> make LDAP work efficiently, a high performance on read operations becomes
> the focus.
>
> LDAP and databases (relation, oo or other) do have several factors in
common,
> - client and server side providers
> - system organizational areas, system tablespaces, system backends,
> schema management, security, authentication...
>
> Where LDAP has a edge is in the somewhat static "lookup" space. Being
> optimized for read operations, handling id to value management falls into
> it's sweet spot. A well designed relational DB is much more suited for the
> transactional type data.
>
> Can LDAP and transactional database technology leverage each other -
> absolutely. The architectural overlap is fairly astounding, and has bee the
> topic of many discussions in the LDAPd community. Consider a highly tuned
> LDAP server responsible for database schema administration (normally static
> information).
>
> Advantages: LDAP protocol requires replication and the ability forward
> requests, which are not available locally, to a location which can serve
> them. So the ability to manage distributed databases becomes a natural
> component. With more thought put in place, there really is no reason that
> with LDAP serving as the system engine for a database, you couldn't have
> storage managers optimized for object persistence (oodb), transaction data
> (rdbms), and hierachical information (hierarchical db) all acting as one
> database system.
>
> I could go on for a very long time .....
>
>
>
> From: Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [email protected]
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
> X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
>
> I wasn't so much looking for projects to put under the DB wing, but
> thinking of people who might be interested in LDAPd. An LDAP most
> definately is *not* an RDBMS, but it is a protocol for accessing
> hierarchical databases. After filesystems and DNS, ldap's are probably the
> most widely used hierarchical databases around.
>
> I for one would be more than happy to contribute LDAPd, particularly if
> said alternative is Java embedable.
>
> So, if it comes to a vote and I am allowed to vote, it has my +1.
>
> -Brian
>
> On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 02:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> >>you might also want to say something about this on
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] as an LDAP is sort of a db =)
> >
> >>A high-profile new project could help liven up DB some ;-)
> >
> >I think that naming and directory services are sufficiently different from
> >an ODBMS or RDBMS.
> >
> >DB might want to consider adopting Jakarta Commons DBCP. That topic has
> >come up before, and didn't lack support.
> >
> >There are some other candidates that the DB PMC could look into incubating
> >and adopting. For example, http://axion.tigris.org/ is a rather obvious
> >candidate, especially considering the committer list (geir jvanzyl mpoeschl
> >rwald).
> >
> >Firebird would be nice, but they seem more interested in selling
memberships
> >in their foundation, which is completely incompatible with the ASF
> >meritocracy.
> >
> >There there are ODBMS such as Ozone (wrong license, though).
>
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Re: Official Apache Directory Project Proposal Submission
> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:24:29 -0400
> X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
>
> Brian,
>
> Actually we have implemented a rudimentary relational database (non-sql)
> inside the server specifically to optimize for LDAP, however the engine core
> could be reused for an RDBMS. Both and RDBMS and an LDAP server are
databases
> really.
>
> Actually the combination of an RDBMS coupled with an LDAP server would be
very
> powerful together. If the data dictionary of an RDBMS is stored in LDAP the
> schema remains consistant across RDBMS instances and can be managed
centrally
> and replicated easily. Also works nicely for the storage of simple LUT
based
> contraint tables. You know the ones u use for an enumeration of options to
> constrain a column. For example a LOAN table may have a TYPE column and
there
> may be a LOAN_TYPES lookup table to constrain the column containing a single
> pk column of loan type varchars like so:
>
> Jumbo
> 30 Year Fixed
> 15 Year Fixed
> 5 Year ARM
>
> etc ...
>
> LDAP would be great for storing LUT's where the reads are many and the
writes
> are few. It's not a core table for transactions like the LOAN table itself.
> This way several databases can leverage the same LUT data consistantly.
Also
> you can use delegation in LDAP to let the designated authority manage the
> additions to the LOAN_TYPES table.
>
> Another member on the LDAPd team named Robb which is CC'ed in this email has
> been discussing the potential for a common database library. The library
> would have a storage managment layer, a index and a search engine with an
> optimizer for use in any database paradigm.
>
> Robb's an ex Oracle developer that helped design what is to be the system
> catalog for LDAPd. He's valuable to us from a db engineering standpoint.
I'm
> sure he could play a pivitol role in working with the db folks. But please
> don't take him from us just yet ;-).
>
> BU,
> Alex
>
> >
> > From: Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2003/09/11 Thu PM 12:27:01 EDT
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Official Apache Directory Project Proposal Submission
> >
> > Am writing up a post, but you might also want to say something about
> > this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] as an LDAP is sort of a db =)
> >
> > A high-profile new project could help liven up DB some ;-)
> >
> > -Brian
>
>
>
