From dev-return-16601-apmail-directory-dev-archive=directory.apache.org@directory.apache.org Sat Mar 17 13:05:49 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 16673 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2007 13:05:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Mar 2007 13:05:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 41963 invoked by uid 500); 17 Mar 2007 13:05:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 41925 invoked by uid 500); 17 Mar 2007 13:05:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 41911 invoked by uid 99); 17 Mar 2007 13:05:56 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:05:56 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of akarasulu@gmail.com designates 66.249.82.229 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.82.229] (HELO wx-out-0506.google.com) (66.249.82.229) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:05:45 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h31so792540wxd for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:05:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=fePQAsY79CTRxRcwiwE9HbHHips9H+oLY0Xd1OYX4ruzHInf3Lu2rOnDyFZgUSYkmfzVvYX1EGRCiYlvVj1VZUrk3TVNoN/E3uOGhv3PR2lndRAqeHXhrg0e/jKPp9dLup2AWvWslAavYsvyoFYKO4Ng1rl9pEeryprWF8owr7g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=TIn05HWTtwY6yny4uyXLkSXLvH9ND2JvJJukkghv/EmTwYkRu/s5bWrcRZex0XOH9+4njN+7ZolbtY1d32EWglN/HQeC9tUFlQ8T8kbZYTh18pzkTRQCXUzox9Iz6g6melrI+IpEL/Pv8dS01dBILIBkaDEZifvi8r2/c/nQcDs= Received: by 10.70.39.5 with SMTP id m5mr4972854wxm.1174136724254; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:05:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.78.18 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:05:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:05:24 -0400 From: "Alex Karasulu" Sender: akarasulu@gmail.com To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Subject: Re: Are we fully supporting RFC 3698 ? In-Reply-To: <45FBBC65.7040508@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_46993_10434375.1174136724207" References: <45FBBC65.7040508@gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6e90f57a56989064 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_46993_10434375.1174136724207 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Emmanuel, Yes I think we should support this RFC fully. On 3/17/07, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > > Hi guys, > > as far as I can check, the response is : > - all the elements are declared in the ADS schema Yep they are but how accurately are these matchingRules actually implemented. We to start using the new ones you implemented correctly I think. I was trying to look into doing that last night. - but we still have to implement the comparators and the matching rules. Oh so you did not implement these MRs yet? I think they all use the default comparator, which is not exactly what > they should do. Right we probably just have a combination of the default comparator and others that are close to these matching rules but these are there as a place holders for now so search can occur using these MRs. We have not had any problems yet but some may argue that this is because we have not had to deal with that use case yet. How wrong am I ? No you're not wrong. We have issues with respect to this RFC. We just have to determine the extent of those issues. Alex Emmanuel > ------=_Part_46993_10434375.1174136724207 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Emmanuel,

Yes I think we should support this RFC fully.

On 3/17/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com > wrote:
Hi guys,

as far as I can check, the response is :
- all the elements are declared in the ADS schema

Yep they are but how accurately are these matchingRules actually implemented. 
We to start using the new ones you implemented correctly I think.  I was trying
to look into doing that last night.

- but we still have to implement the comparators and the matching rules.

Oh so you did not implement these MRs yet?

I think they all use the default comparator, which is not exactly what
they should do.

Right we probably just have a combination of the default comparator and others that
are close to these matching rules but these are there as a place holders for now so
search can occur using these MRs.  We have not had any problems yet but some
may argue that this is because we have not had to deal with that use case yet.

How wrong am I ?

No you're not wrong.  We have issues with respect to this RFC.  We just have to
determine the extent of those issues.

Alex


Emmanuel

------=_Part_46993_10434375.1174136724207--