Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.230 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
        b=frT8tW150MaHgnXpyC0hFkBeo3ae3YUqP5xwNtaAzc5h3niX3G8SRU8Cn5Ee0DY6p97mwY1KsQQpjpb4TfPWDr/NCSfXXKYCOm072NAA/fXe1r5hS51/HWrqH9mbNMg34BVKul47jwI+dTotH1/nWtPz2AeZlcKstQl+s8G/N6I=
Message-ID: <d45b08f00612070834o7ca5b7f3mb009aff46f762131@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:34:29 +0100
From: "Emmanuel Lecharny" <elecharny@gmail.com>
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Binary attributes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_39819_17625259.1165509269648"

------=_Part_39819_17625259.1165509269648
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,

while I'm writting some SyntaxCheckers, a question popped in my mind : do w=
e
still have to take care of binary attributes ? This is a list of attributes
type which is set into server.xml to express the fact that those attributes
are considered as binary, and not as text, thus their values are stored as
byte[] insteado of UTF-8 Strings.

Each attribute has a type, and must respect a Syntax, which already describ=
e
the type of data that can be stored into an attribute values. Be it
DirectoryString for instance, then the attribute value is an UTF-8 String,
as stated by RFC 4517. If we neeed to store a binary value like a jpeg file=
,
we can use the Jpeg syntax for the Attribute type. Otherwise, the
OctetString Syntax is able to handle any kind of value, for 0 byte to
whatever.

I guess we can relax a little bit the decoder checks by considering that al=
l
attribute values are byte[], and let the Schema Interceptor deal with badly
written values, checking them with their associated Syntax.

wdyt ?

--=20
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L=E9charny

------=_Part_39819_17625259.1165509269648
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,<br><br>while I'm writting some SyntaxCheckers, a question popped in my =
mind : do we still have to take care of binary attributes ? This is a list =
of attributes type which is set into server.xml to express the fact that th=
ose attributes are considered as binary, and not as text, thus their values=
 are stored as byte[] insteado of UTF-8 Strings.
<br><br>Each attribute has a type, and must respect a Syntax, which already=
 describe the type of data that can be stored into an attribute values. Be =
it DirectoryString for instance, then the attribute value is an UTF-8 Strin=
g, as stated by RFC 4517. If we neeed to store a binary value like a jpeg f=
ile, we can use the Jpeg syntax for the Attribute type. Otherwise, the Octe=
tString Syntax is able to handle any kind of value, for 0 byte to whatever.
<br><br>I guess we can relax a little bit the decoder checks by considering=
 that all attribute values are byte[], and let the Schema Interceptor deal =
with badly written values, checking them with their associated Syntax.<br>
<br>wdyt ?<br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Cordialement,<br>Emmanuel L=E9charny

------=_Part_39819_17625259.1165509269648--