Windows-like registry for Linux?
Neil Schelly
neil at jenandneil.com
Wed Feb 15 09:34:01 EST 2006
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 09:11 am, Paul Lussier wrote:
> > I guess I'm a little idealistic - I'd love to see LDAP more
> > mainstream because it really does a lot of things really well,
>
> Like what? It's got a horrendous schema architecture, it's not easy
> to configure, insert data, access data, etc.
Like a listing of data that updates rarely but is needed for quick querying.
Like any type of data like this that can be arranged/organized
hierarchically. The schema architecture makes a lot of sense for directory
purposes and while it's a little complicated at first, a good book and a good
how-to online can clear up that hurdle. Configuring it really only requires
a prerequisite knowledge of how you want to use it and inserting/accessing
data has never struck me as the least bit confusing.
> It does a lousy job of managing relational data.
It's not a relational DBMS. It isn't meant to be. I thought this
conversation was about a registry-type of storage mechanism and the registry
is a perfect example a data store that is not relational in nature (whether
or not it's a good idea is another question, but it really doesn't make sense
for it to be relational).
> In that case, it's really nothing more than a network accessible front
> end for BDB. But it's not BDB that's the problem, it's the LDAP
> architecture.
That's what said about "network-accessible BDB" and exactly what I mean about
re-inventing the wheel. Why program a new interface for a network
accessible, hierarchical datastore based on BDB (or any other backend) when
that's what LDAP was designed for?
-Neil
More information about the gnhlug-discuss
mailing list