Using LDAP server as a storage base, how practical is it?

I want to learn how practical using an LDAP server (say AD) as a storage base. To be more clear; how much does it make sense using an LDAP server instead of using RDBMS to store data?

I can guess that most you might just say "it doesn't" but there might be some reasons to make it meaningful (especially business wise);

A few points first;

• Each table becomes a container entity and each row becomes a new entity as a child. Row entities contains attributes for columns. So you represent your data in this way. (This should be the most meaningful representation I think, suggestions are welcome)
• So storing data like a DB server is possible but lack of FK and PK (not sure about PK) support is an issue. On the other hand it supports attribute (relates to a column) indexing (Not sure how efficient). So consistency of data is responsibility of the application layer.

Why would somebody do this ever?

• Data that application uses/stores closely matches with the existing data in AD. (Users, Machines, Department Info etc.) (But still some customization is required to existing entity schema, and new schema definitions are needed for not very much related data.)
• (I think strong开发者_运维知识库est reason would be this: business related) Most mid-sized companies have very well configured AD servers (replicated, backed-up etc.) but they don't have such DB setup (you can make comment to this as much as you want). Say when you sell your software which requires a DB setup to these companies, they must manage their DB setup; but if you say "you don't need DB setup and management; you can just use existing AD", it sounds appealing.

Obviously there are many disadvantages of giving up using DB, feel free to mention them but let's assume they are acceptable. (I can mention more if question is not clear enough.)

LDAP is a terrible tool for maintaining most business data.

Think about a typical one-to-many relationship - say, customer and orders. One customer has many orders.

There is no good way to represent this data in an LDAP directory.

You could try having a mock "foreign key" by making every entry of that given object class have a "foreign key" attribute, but your referential integrity just went out the window. Cascade deletes are impossible.

You could try having a "customer" object that has "order" children. However, you've just introduced a specific hierachy - you're now tied to it.

And that's the simplest use case. Once you start getting into more complex relationships, you're basically re-inventing an RDBMS in a system explicity designed for a different purpose. The clue's in the name - directory.

If you're storing a phonebook, then sure, use LDAP. For anything else, use a real database.

For relatively small, flexible data sets I think an LDAP solution is workable. However an RDBMS provides a number significant advantages:

1. Backup and Recovery: just about any database will provide ACID properties. And, RDBMS backups are generally easy to script and provide several options (e.g. full vs. differential). Just don't know with LDAP, but I imagine these qualities are not as widespread.
2. Reporting: AFAIK LDAP doesn't offer a way to JOIN values easily, much the less do things like calculate summations. So you would put a lot of effort into application code to reproduce those behaviors when you do need reporting. And what application doesn't ultimately?
3. Indexing: looks like LDAP solutions have indexing, but again, seems hit or miss. Whereas seemingly all databases out there have put some real effort into getting this right.

I think any serious business system's storage should be backed up in the same fashion you believe LDAP is in most environments. If what you're really after is its flexibility in terms of representing hierarchy and ability to define dynamic schemas I'd suggest looking into NoSQL solutions or the Java Content Repository.

LDAP is very usefull for storing that information and if you want it, you may use it. RDMS is just more comfortable with ORM systems. Your persistence logic with LDAP will so complex. And worth mentioning that this is not a standard approach -> people who will support the project will spend more time on analysis.

I've used this approach for fun, i generate a phonebook from Active Directory, but i don`t think that it's good idea to use LDAP as a store for business applications.

In short: Use the right tool for the right job.

When people see LDAP you already set an expectation on your system. Don't forget that the L Lightweight. LDAP was designed for accessing directories over a network.

With a “directory database” you can build a certain type of application. If you can map your data to a tree like data structure it will work. I surely would not want to steam videos from LDAP! You can probably hack something but I would prefer a steaming server..

There might be some hidden gotchas down the line if you use a tool not designed for what it is supposed to do. So, the downside is you'll have to test stuff that would have been a given in some cases.

It's not is not just a technical concern. Your operational support team might “frown” on your application as they would have certain expectations/preconceptions based on your applications architectural nature. Imagine their surprise if you give them CRM system (website + files and popped email etc.) in a LDAP server as database to maintain.

If I was in your position, I would steer towards one of the NoSQL db solutions rather than trying to use LDAP. LDAP is fine for things like storing user and employee information, but is terrible to interact with when you need to make changes. A NoSQL db will allow you to store your data how you want without the RDBMS overhead you would like to avoid.

The answer is actually easy. Think of CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete). If a lot of Read will be made in your system, you can think of using LDAP. Because LDAP is quick in read operations and designed so. If the other operations will be made more, the RDMS would be a better option.