On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:23:04 +0200, Michael Willigens
mich...@willigens.de wrote:
Hey,
i have thought about that last night,
Its sounds a bit odd but it would be possible to use an LDAP server
for GeoNaming lookups. We could create a canonical, hirachical scheme
and fill in any named
Zitat von marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:23:04 +0200, Michael Willigens
mich...@willigens.de wrote:
Hey,
i have thought about that last night,
Its sounds a bit odd but it would be possible to use an LDAP server
for GeoNaming lookups. We could create a canonical,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:52:25 +0200, Michael Willigens
mich...@willigens.de wrote:
yep, your right for the query part. but i think we need placeholder in
the server datastructure anyway to make it work. anyway, i have made
good experiences with LDAP using huge datasets. Thing is: is there
Hey,
i have thought about that last night,
Its sounds a bit odd but it would be possible to use an LDAP server
for GeoNaming lookups. We could create a canonical, hirachical scheme
and fill in any named Objects. Correctly implemented LDAP is several
times faster than MySQL in naming lookups
woops,
in my noobish opinin i was thinking that any object must fit the whole
schema which isnt true. so you are right. :
michael
Zitat von marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:52:25 +0200, Michael Willigens
mich...@willigens.de wrote:
yep, your right for the query part.
Hi,
Thing is: is there
anything we need that LDAP does not give us?
Let me ask the other way round: What are the cool things that LDAP
*does* give us and where it saves us time compared to do something
ourselves?
I believe that the major complexity in the name finder is that real
language
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:09:30 +0200, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Hi,
Thing is: is there
anything we need that LDAP does not give us?
Let me ask the other way round: What are the cool things that LDAP
*does* give us and where it saves us time compared to do something
Hi,
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
I disagree with the have to.
A new implementation can have a form
with inputs for country, city, ..., housenumber and an optional
select amenityNearby
Well yes but that would not be something than can replace the old
namefinder, that would be an
Zitat von Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Hi,
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
I disagree with the have to.
A new implementation can have a form
with inputs for country, city, ..., housenumber and an optional
select amenityNearby
Well yes but that would not be something than can
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Michael Willigens mich...@willigens.de wrote:
should not be a problem to support this. abbrevate the objects before
indexing:
highways: filter: ave, street, way, strasse, straße etc. same goes
for cities and towns. LDAP supports wildcard queries for the rest
10 matches
Mail list logo
