directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: [Documentation] Partition Concept - Sound OK?
Date Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:36:33 GMT
Ole Ersoy a écrit :

> So this statement:
> Multiple partitions may exist, the entry trees they contain are 
> disconnected to each other.

> Means that:
> - We can have multiple partitions within ApacheDS.


> - Entries contained in one partition do not reference entries in 
> another partition, either directly or indirectly (A points to B, C 
> points to B, hence C points to A)?

well, yes and no. To be really clear, you can 'point' to another entry 
using the DN (for instance, in entry A you may sore a reference to entry 
B by storing B's DN - the attribute 'member' is such an exemple), but if 
you modify B, A won't be modified.

> - An entry in partition A can be a copy of an entry in partition B


> So I'm assuming disconnected means that changing any entry
> in partition A, will never affect any entry in partition B.

ok, we can say that.

> If that is the case then I still think the entries are
> mutually exclusive.

They are disconnected. 'Mutually exclusive' does not mean anything in 
this case (

> In the same sense that copies are mutually exclusive.

See above.

> We can make a copy of a source, name it target,
> and change target.  Changing the target has no effect
> on the source, so they are mutually exclusive.

This is not exactly the common means for 'mutual exclusion' : Funny enough, I'm 
currently reading a book about Quanta Therory, where the schrodinger cat 
is dead and alive at the same time, but if you observe it, then the two 
states are mutually exclusive (the cat can't be alive AND dead :)

> I'm just trying to zoom in on what disconnected means...

well, in my mind, disconnected means you can change the entry in B 
without any impact on A.

> I know these things are defined all over the place, In other
> tutorials etc.  I personally prefer that we have our own
> concept section where we define concepts, such that we can:
> - link to them whenever a concept is being used in a document
> - Easily update the source per comments / suggestions, per a change in 
> the concept

IMHO, trying to redo what has been done before is just reinventing the 
wheel... It would be best to stick to already existing terminology, and 
use it. Another benefit of soing so : it spares the time we have spent 
writing all those mails ! But whatever, sometime, it's good to discuss 
on such matters, because sometime, terminology is not clear enough...

> P.S.  I managed to log onto the wiki, so I'll start updating
> grammer/english stuff.  I'll only change how an idea/concept is
> communicated if we first
> agree on it.

Ok, that's perfect !

Thanks !

View raw message