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