Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 7238 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2007 01:11:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Apr 2007 01:11:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 53476 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2007 01:11:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 53448 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2007 01:11:06 -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 53437 invoked by uid 99); 6 Apr 2007 01:11:06 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:11:06 -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 66.249.92.171 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.171] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:10:58 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 71so1141768ugh for ; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:10:37 -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=h54WHuk32Cp8JuExCwrmKQj2R10QY4y/YApH+ZvLckQLHUpaIbTEgQersP53nM2skRenlX8Mv27xGu0l43oZyRRsLrTWSkejK7E4aWmZE8s8/wKkKr+M/gQhhsOYeqbGOFyK5Ou8ODs96w5nAdhe4aJB0Gl059RwvxN+8BgXr2E= 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=oX8pgVooV6WNNPo/NFjRhXm4YgdRLTyZ0f3ebhgHS0Q0kYk/tG+66MbG2xCs/686AeAanaRlONlnbBtV1SOAQayJ2t0EEvMm2DTDUV8FNHWxeHC6mapiQTiJEkPps6Zhr5e50wwZwOgISbx5RX93cxUSrnkhmRGqgLaIbVYdnqI= Received: by 10.67.11.15 with SMTP id o15mr2577790ugi.1175821837567; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.226.14 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 21:10:37 -0400 From: "Alex Karasulu" Sender: akarasulu@gmail.com To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Subject: Re: [SCHEMA] Can two different LDAP AttributeType's have the same name? In-Reply-To: <46157D32.3080103@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_177_14825842.1175821837501" References: <46157D32.3080103@gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5109ddeb4539058e X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_177_14825842.1175821837501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Short answer is no. Long answer is no as well :). Basically there is only one LDAP schema entity namespace shared across all entity names. What does this mean? Not only does two attributeTypes have to have different aliases (names like commonName and cn rather than OIDs), an objectClass cannot have the same alias name as the attributeType either. You cannot have a foo attributeType and a foo objectClass (or syntax, or matchingRule, or attributeType, or dITStructureRule, or dITContentRule etc.) Kinda sucks don't it? Alex On 4/5/07, Ole Ersoy wrote: > > Originally I assumed that I can have two AttributeType > entries with the same name, > since we also assign unique OIDs to AttributeType entries. > > Then when I looked at how an ObjectClass > is defined, it has code like this: > > ldapAttributes.put( MetaSchemaConstants.M_MUST_AT, "baseDN" ); > ldapAttributes.put( MetaSchemaConstants.M_MAY_AT, "optionalOPP" ); > > So it seems like it's using the name of the AttributeType > rather than the OID, which would mean that the name also > has to be unique? > > So instead of "baseDN" I would have to specify > org.tuscany.das.ldap.config.DASConfig.baseDN > in order to guarantee that the name is unique. > > Does that sound right? > > Thanks, > - Ole > > ------=_Part_177_14825842.1175821837501 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Short answer is no.  Long answer is no as well :).  Basically there is only one LDAP schema entity namespace shared across all entity names.  What does this mean? Not only does two attributeTypes have to have different aliases (names like commonName and cn rather than OIDs), an objectClass cannot have the same alias name as the attributeType either.

You cannot have a foo attributeType and a foo objectClass (or syntax, or matchingRule, or attributeType, or dITStructureRule, or dITContentRule etc.)

Kinda sucks don't it?

Alex

On 4/5/07, Ole Ersoy <ole.ersoy@gmail.com> wrote:
Originally I assumed that I can have two AttributeType
entries with the same name,
since we also assign unique OIDs to AttributeType entries.

Then when I looked at how an ObjectClass
is defined, it has code like this:

ldapAttributes.put( MetaSchemaConstants.M_MUST_AT, "baseDN" );
ldapAttributes.put( MetaSchemaConstants.M_MAY_AT, "optionalOPP" );

So it seems like it's using the name of the AttributeType
rather than the OID, which would mean that the name also
has to be unique?

So instead of "baseDN" I would have to specify
org.tuscany.das.ldap.config.DASConfig.baseDN
in order to guarantee that the name is unique.

Does that sound right?

Thanks,
- Ole


------=_Part_177_14825842.1175821837501--