directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ersin Er" <ersin...@cs.hacettepe.edu.tr>
Subject Re: Discussion on porting X.500 ACIItem to LDAP
Date Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:25:40 GMT
>> This is really a big spec when you think that a
>> Set of SubtreeSpecifications is only a small part of the grammar..
>>
>> I can change the grantsAndDenials to recognize a string of certain
>> number
>> of 0's and 1's something like '10101010'B. However Trustin will have to
>> write a lot of bitwise code to handle this component in his ACDF. If we
>> choose this way we must exactly determine which fields are necessary for
>> ldap while it's not a flexible structure.
>
> If you write a string, you will have to put all the bits. It's a good
> idea to suppress some of the bits, but keep in mind that it's a better
> idea to keep the offset of each bit, instead of renumbering them.

It's a good idea to keep unused bits reserved. Then we'll be compatible
with X.501 and save space a lot. I liked this.

> Handling the bits could be something simple if we use internally the
> BitString we have in ber-new, assuming we add a constructor that take a
> String.

If Trustin provides me a constructor that takes a String then i'll not
care if he uses your stuff or his own :-) But we should first be sure if
we'll use bit-list or bstring form. After Alex and Trustin says final
thoughts i'll finish it up.

( elecharny, i've fixed some issues with the grammar. I'll show you on the
channel. You can forget about issues of SP we talked here. )

-- Ersin

Mime
View raw message