Yes you're absolutely right. Thanks for helping me see the true path. Let's refactor it in.
Now who will do this when is an issue as always. I'll see if I can spare cycles for it but I
need help: drowning over here.
What I am sure is that this feature is a MUST and it's urgent. The things you proposed in the thread "Specifying application level subtrees?" even depend on this feature. Without virtual attributes, no dynamic stuff makes sense. So I suggest starting working on this immediately.On 9/21/07, Alex Karasulu < firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Yes we must start thinking about this heavily but the question remains: When?
Do we get a 2.0 out with what features we can fit into the present architecture first
then work on these features in the next experimental branch?
IMO 1.0 is just done. 1.5.x is so much better in every respect. Our users deserve 2.0
ASAP. But we must balance this with stuffing in the right features into what exists.
I want 2.0.x to have a good half life. We need to decide what to do. Or we can just
start working on a redesign concurrently in some branch.
AlexOn 9/21/07, Ersin Er <email@example.com > wrote:If we had Virtual Attributes, there would not be need for special handling such stuff.
I know it's not a trivial task but it's a must to solve many problems we have.--
On 9/21/07, Alex Karasulu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:This should be translated within the interceptor layer (schema service) into (objectClass=*).
Or if in the future we allow TRUE/FALSE nodes in the filter AST then it can be replaced by a TRUE
node which returns the entire set of entries at the specified scope.