directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DAS] Type's ObjectClass Entry
Date Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:39:31 GMT
Ole,

On 4/22/07, Ole Ersoy <ole.ersoy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Alex,
>
> (BTW - If you are pressed for time, just say "Ole I'll review
> this later - Worst case I'll bump into a constraint, and have to reroute
> :-) )  No big deal.
>
> Hopefully this clears the fog a little


Sure.

> What I am saying is you don't need to do this at all.  I think you're
> > missing some big concepts.   When you define the employee object class
> > and need an attribute to reference the department complex object just
> > use the m-must or m-may attributes.
>
> The reason I want "m-complexMay" or "m-complexMust" is because
> these tell the DAS to create an EReference when restoring metadata.
>
> "m-may" and "m-must" tell the DAS to create an EAttribute when
> restoring metadata.


Well if you just check the attributeType of the attribute in the m-may or
m-must list you can discern this easily.  It's just an additional lookup and
the proper way to go.  Use the type of the attribute to understand what to
do with the attribute.  This is how LDAP works.

If I use the approach you are suggesting I have to do additional
> processing to figure out whether it's an EReference or EAttribute.
> Not that it is a huge deal, but I think "m-ComplexMay" and
> "m-ComplexMust" is cleaner, and will result in better performance.


Right additional processing is required to figure out what kind of attribute
it is.  However this is minimal yet more importantly I know without a doubt
that it is the correct way to go.

> Sorry about my frustration but I feel like I'm spending a lot of time
> > and my words are not describing things well enough for you to
> understand.
>
> No pb.  Hopefully I come across as if I understand what you are saying
> now.  I think the two are minor differences in approach, unless I'm
> still missing something.


No it's not about minor differences.  You're just not comprehending how LDAP
schema is to be used.  This is the whole reason why those smart peeps in the
ITU and IETF defined a attributeType.  It's something fundamental to LDAP
and you're just not using it with your approach.  Plus you're mixing a bunch
of things together.

How about this.  I'll try it out.  If I'm missing something.  I'll
> get smacked.  Then I'll rework it your way.  I just think it's a simpler
> design with "m-complexMay" and "m-complexMust".


Man I'm not interested in smacking you I'm just trying to save you time and
give you the answers to your question.

Incidentally the SDO JSR takes your approach.  They define everything as
> a Type.  So no EAttribute and EReference.  They are both just Type.  I
> still like the additional semantics behind EAttribute and EReference, so
> I'll give it a shot.  Maybe I'll get burnt, and then you can tell me "I
> told you so!"  :-)


That's up to you and I don't care if I am right really.  I'm just responding
to your questions.  You don't have to take my advice if you don't want to.
But man are you stubborn :).

Alex

Mime
View raw message