directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [ApacheDS] extendedSubtreeSpecification
Date Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:59:49 GMT
Yes yes but this is not valid syntax for a subtreeSpecification according to
X.500.  It's not a "syntax refinement" (not subtreeRefinement).  Basically
our interpretation will make tools dealing with SSs sh*t themselves.

Alex

On 9/20/07, Ersin Er <ersin.er@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Both of the following are valid:
>
> { specificationFilter or: { item:student, item:faculty } }
>
> { specificationFilter (&(objectClass=person)(title=engineer)) }
>
> Makes sense?
>
> On 9/20/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Can you describe how it is backwards compatible? Sounds to me like the
> > syntax is not compatible.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > On 9/20/07, Ersin Er < ersin.er@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I considered this before and concluded with the most appropriate
> > > solution IMO. Current solution is completely backward compatible. The syntax
> > > supports both refinements and filters for the specificationFilter component
> > > of the subtreeSpecification.
> > >
> > > I can try to explain more why I did not choose other alternative if
> > > you wish.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/20/07, Alex Karasulu < akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ersin,
> > > >
> > > > I got an interesting idea while thinking about subtrees and
> > > > specifications.  As you know we complied
> > > > up until recently strictly with the X.500 administrative model with
> > > > respect to subtreeSpecifications.  The
> > > > changes we added to handle refinements which were filters broke away
> > > > from X.500 in many ways.
> > > >
> > > > I was just thinking that it may be possible to use an
> > > > extendedSubtreeSpecification attribute which
> > > > extends a subtreeSpecification.  However the only problem with this
> > > > is the fact that the attributeType
> > > > subtyping another cannot switch the SYNTAX of the AT.  This is what
> > > > I always thought but perhaps
> > > > I am wrong (I hope) but if I am wrong I think we can leverage AT
> > > > extension while remaining compliant.
> > > >
> > > > Basically we can allow our subentry objectClasses to include
> > > > extendedSubtreeSpecifications instead
> > > > of just the usual subtreeSpecification.
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ersin Er
> > > http://www.ersin-er.name
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ersin Er
> http://www.ersin-er.name
>

Mime
View raw message