Q
Problem solve Get help with specific problems with your technologies, process and projects.

Can you explain to me why LDAP/X.500 is not suitable enough?

Regarding the issue of UDDI, I have the impression that we are re-inventing the wheel. Can you explain to me why LDAP/X.500 is not suitable enough?

There are two primary reasons: scope and use case.

Scope
The UDDI Business Registry (aka UBR or the "public cloud") is a single point of access for the entire world. The idea is that every business in the world will register in the UBR, and anyone looking for a service can query the UBR. There are no "public" LDAP or X.500 directories that can be used as a single point of access. I would expect that many businesses will also set up one single UDDI service for private use. From my experience, very few businesses have just one single LDAP or X.500 directory.

Usecase
LDAP and X.500 are general-purpose directories. They are most often used to manage users and system security (protecting access to systems, files, and printers), although they can be used to keep track of other resources. LDAP and X.500 could certainly be used to keep track of Web services, although LDAP and X.500 don't provide taxonomies to categorize services, and there isn't a standard data model defined for LDAP or X.500 to represent Web services. UDDI is a specific-purpose registry. It is not used to manage users. It's used to advertise and discover Web services. UDDI defines a standard data model to represent businesses and the services they offer. UDDI also provides a set of taxonomies that can be used to categorize businesses and their services. I would say that this feature is the primary reason why we aren't re-inventing the wheel. The primary purpose behind UDDI is to help you find a service that meets your requirements. LDAP is like a white pages directory. UDDI is more like a yellow pages directory. (plus it contains the "green pages" information that provides access to technical specifications of the services)

That said, there's no reason why you can't implement UDDI based on LDAP. The UDDI specification doesn't dictate what type of system is used to house its information. Most implementations use a relational database as its data store, but I've heard of two implementations being developed on LDAP.


Dig Deeper on Topics Archive

Learning Path: Network and Web Site Administration NETWORK AND WEB SITE ADMINISTRATION....network operations center (NOC) - internetworking - firewall - proxy server - DMZ - NAT - EGP - BGP - peering - colocation - IGP - DHCP - network operating system - Novell Directory Services (NDS) - nslookup - NNTP - SNMP - e-mail - POP3 - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) - X.400 Messaging - e-mail reflector - list server - file sharing - Web server - Network File System (NFS) - finger - ping - traceroute - TTL (time-to-live) - GDMO - ICMP - Apache (server) - X.500 Directory Service - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) - Windows Internet Naming Service (WINS) - Universal Naming Convention - UDDI - vital product data - root server system - access control list - public key infrastructure - linkrot - Kermit - Internet traffic sites - ping storm - KVM switch - sliding windows - denial-of-service attack - ghost imaging View other topics for self-study by visiting our Guide to the Learning Paths.

Have a question for an expert?

Please add a title for your question

Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.

You will be able to add details on the next page.

Start the conversation

Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

-ADS BY GOOGLE

SearchSoftwareQuality

SearchAWS

SearchCloudComputing

TheServerSide.com

Close