[glue-wg] Notes from OGF 28

[stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk]

JP Navarro [mailto:navarro at mcs.anl.gov] said:
> Good point, in a relational design there might be many more tables
> than would be desirable even in a fairly flat XML rendering.
> 
> However, I still think there a some common design considerations in
> a flag XML rendering that could make it into a data transport format
> for a relational GLUE 2 database. In other words, it is closer to a
> fully normalized relational design than other GLUE 2 encodings, right?

Actually in the way we've done it I think the LDAP implementation is
probably just as close, since we've said that the LDAP DN hierarchy is
just for convenience. So although in practice we will have a tree, you
could in theory put all the objects in a huge flat list and it would
still work (other than that Extensions have to be underneath the object
they extend). To go from LDAP to SQL you would basically have to break
out every multivalued attribute into a separate table.

Stephen
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.