directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel LŽcharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Question about new OC addition to the schema
Date Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:01:16 GMT
Alex Karasulu a écrit :
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>   
>> Another Q :
>>
>> what should we do if we create an OC containing an AT (in MAY or MUST,
>> that's irrelevant) which is already present in one of it's parents ? Should
>> it be considered as an error ?
>>
>>
>>     
> Yes I think we should flag an error just to make sure the user understands
> this AT is present and available thanks to an ancestor OC.  If anything it
> shows the user to be more aware while dealing with schema design.
>   
Ok.
> In general if there is any anomaly I would take the policy of rejection even
> if it is recoverable or not an issue.  If there is even the slightest smell
> of something not being right with the schema or the awareness of the schema
> designer we should take the stance of caution.
>
> BTW it would be nice to be able to tell the user, 'hey guy this AT is
> already in the MAY/MUST list thanks to ancestor foo'.
>   
It's difficult to have this level of precision : right now, the message 
tells the user that the AT is already declared somewhere else (MUST or 
MAY, or one of the parent's MUST/MAY).



Mime
View raw message