directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject [Aliases] Questions ...
Date Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:47:44 GMT
Hi guys,

after the paged search control, I'm trying to clean some issue we have 
with Aliases. This raise some questions I have about the way we handle 

First, this is not a common features ( It's not mandatory to handle 
aliases in a LDAP server, and currently, AFAIK, Opends, SunDS and AD 
don't support aliases, while OpenLDAP does ).

We are supporting Aliases, to a certain extend. But it may be :
- not complete
- and inefficient

We are not going to address #2, as first I haven't made any measure to 
see if it's efficient or not, and #2, it's not time for such 
improvement. So my questions will be mostly about #1.

First, we have an open issue since 1.0 version : DIRSERVER-803 
( This is a special 
case : we create an alias which is linked to an ancestor. Questions :
1) Should we allow such aliases ? Currently, it's rejected and seen as a 
2) If we allow such aliases, how should we detect that we are not 
looping when doing a subtree search ?
3) What about cross referencing alias (ie alias A refers to alias B and 
vice versa) ?

We have options, as we maintain a cache internally with all the entries 
which are not aliases ( a bit like what we do with referrals), but as we 
may have order of magnitudes more non-aliases than aliases, this sounds 
a bit weird to me. Shouldn't we create a cache of entries which are 
referrals instead of the opposite ? This is what we do for the 
referrals, and we initiate this cache when starting the server, reading 
all the entries with the referral AT.

Also another question : we are handling aliases in the 
ExceptionInterceptor. Wouldn't it be better to do so in an 
AliasInterceptor ?

Wdyt ?

PS: we may differ the Alias modifications to another version, as it may 
take more than a couple of days to fix it. Also we need more tests for 
aliases : currently, I'm not sure we have some !

Thanks !

cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message