Hi, Robert,
"Robert M. Muench" wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> Hi, I haven't done a lot with LDAP yet, so I read some FAQs
> about it. Very interesting! Especially the name,value pair
> approach is straight-forward. I can think of a lot of
> applications, where LDAP could be used... but this might be
> wrong, as LDAP isn't a "database" system.
>
Well... some would argue with that phraseology.
>
> Could LDAP be used to store all kind of information, which is
> more read than written? Things like FAQs, Contacts,
> Schedules etc.? Robert
>
That's exactly what it's for IMHO. It is optimized for high-
volume queries, but *NOT* for transactional support (rollback,
commit, etc.) nor for high-volume updates. The name really
contains some clues -- (L)ightweight (D)irectory (A)ccess.
As long as you're dealing with data that have a long update
cycle (e.g. persons with addresses and phone numbers, devices
with static IP addresses on a network, etc...) LDAP looks
like a good candidate.
-jn-
--
"This sentence contradicts itself -- no actually it doesn't."
-- Doug Hofstadter
joel<dot>neely<at>fedex<dot>com
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
