Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-api-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 76099 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2010 22:03:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2010 22:03:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 33186 invoked by uid 500); 22 Sep 2010 22:03:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-api-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 33140 invoked by uid 500); 22 Sep 2010 22:03:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact api-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: api@directory.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list api@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 33125 invoked by uid 99); 22 Sep 2010 22:03:33 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:03:33 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rms.listen@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.210.50] (HELO mail-pz0-f50.google.com) (209.85.210.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:03:24 +0000 Received: by pzk3 with SMTP id 3so150775pzk.37 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:03:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1FX06UeQ3zWdm8YcODGaeG6miUdpyLOLEVV++iOWRVI=; b=qvrvdZNb+gI5PGnXAYaYvCIwH+WNVBDMPMPdET8hwYp5651XmIK1bIzzvFk86+e1Q5 GgX4uTy5Mv0PmGVsxuybYhkdBNconfvDgsn8ZRMcF+oMAQ7IungX0+zfXj28LhWay6S+ fqbSDTpmI06cl4ZiifaZmaGA579h/6xBaiIfw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RYM91zu+3SvEcmlu39543H1ITJIQ5HNRGokMdYtJFJpEbLVBzjY3jZiZ1bSL2dpyGy 0J/3VM/26eS5Fvx2FWRYW3wLgDvehusRX3fwdJL72IY6rnIQa/nTuegOJhUU4f9pXv3U JWLyZ01BZMajIJV6i9JjamzZRA6sv4N3PJcxs= Received: by 10.114.152.6 with SMTP id z6mr909424wad.151.1285192982602; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([125.33.5.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k23sm55303waf.17.2010.09.22.15.03.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C9A7D11.10600@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 06:02:57 +0800 From: rm User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: api@directory.apache.org Subject: Re: aci evaluation ... References: <4C988B21.4010306@gmail.com> <4C98CEF2.5050801@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C98CEF2.5050801@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org hi emmanuel, thanks for your reply ... so, just to clarify ... the only 'standard' way to find out wether or not i can perform a certain action is to try it? otherwise, i'd be stuck with extended operation or with parsing serverimplementation- and/or configuration specific acl entries? but the server should know! and it won't tell me? that is not a very polite thing to do ... again, thanks .rm On 21/09/2010 23:27 , Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > On 9/21/10 12:38 PM, rm wrote: >> >> >> hi, >> >> i am trying to get ACI information out of an ldap server i am >> connecting to - the gui of the application i am working on should >> change it's state depending on wether or not a user has certain >> permissions (actually, it is as simple as wether or not to display an >> "add" button). >> >> aside from launching an extended operation ... i should be possible to >> get this information, right? so ... i am wondering why it's not >> exposed in any of the APIs i looked at? the apache ldap libs have some >> stuff in the "shared" portion, but i dont think it's a good idea to go >> there ... >> >> being able to get the current state without having to parse all aci >> atts myself seems to be such a straightforward thing - and i can't >> find any hints as to how to do it ... i fear the worst: that i >> completely misunderstood some ldap concepts. >> >> any help? please? > There is nothing such as a common ACI syntax : each LDAP server uses its > own. So this is quite normal that no API gives you the ACI information... > > However, you can grab it, if you know which server you are dealing with, > but you will probably not be able to do anything with it unless you are > able to evaluate this ACI. > > Sorry for that ... > >