directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Emmanuel Lecharny (JIRA)" <directory-...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DIRLDAP-62) [ACIITemParser] Position of terms in optional ASN.1 elements should not matter
Date Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:04:45 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRLDAP-62?page=comments#action_12332432 ] 

Emmanuel Lecharny commented on DIRLDAP-62:
------------------------------------------

being able to enter those names in any order is not a big deal. Further more, it will simplify
the grammar.

The only tricky thing to control is that a name is used only once. Again, not a big deal,
has we can use a HashMap to store each name already used.

In the antlr grammar,  we have 12 rules than can be concatenated in only two rules. 

So let's do it !

> [ACIITemParser] Position of terms in optional ASN.1 elements should not matter
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: DIRLDAP-62
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRLDAP-62
>      Project: Directory LDAP
>         Type: Improvement
>   Components: Common
>     Reporter: Alex Karasulu
>     Assignee: Ersin Er

>
> The position of optional elements is relavent within the ACIItemParser.  For example
for ProtectedItems the position of optional elements are relevant so for example the following
ACI whould bomb out:
>                 "{ " +
>                 "identificationTag \"searchAci\", " +
>                 "precedence 14, " +
>                 "authenticationLevel none, " +
>                 "itemOrUserFirst userFirst: { " +
>                 "userClasses { allUsers }, " +
>                 "userPermissions { { " +
>                 "protectedItems {allUserAttributeTypesAndValues, entry }, " +
>                 "grantsAndDenials { grantRead, grantReturnDN, grantBrowse } } } } }"

> This however would succeed:
>                 "{ " +
>                 "identificationTag \"searchAci\", " +
>                 "precedence 14, " +
>                 "authenticationLevel none, " +
>                 "itemOrUserFirst userFirst: { " +
>                 "userClasses { allUsers }, " +
>                 "userPermissions { { " +
>                 "protectedItems {entry, allUserAttributeTypesAndValues }, " +
>                 "grantsAndDenials { grantRead, grantReturnDN, grantBrowse } } } } }"

> The same holds for other constructs where a sequence of optional elements are expected.
 However this is a big problem.  The user specifying the ACI must know what comes first, what
comes second and so on in the ASN.1 description.  This is just too strict of a constraint
to place on users and will degrade the ease of use.  
> Really because we have names for each field order does not need to matter anymore.  
> I marked this as an improvement as opposed to a bug because the ASN.1 to ABNF translation
was correct.  It just is not the best thing to do.  
>  

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


Mime
View raw message