directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: Update about subtree problems
Date Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:53:48 GMT
  On 7/20/10 7:46 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
> Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>    Thinking about my previous mail, I may have an idea :
>> what if we don't store the subentry's DN into the selected entries
>> operational attributes, but the subentry's entryUUID ? This value
>> *never* changes, we have an index on it, we can also easily build a
>> cache for it.
>> It will solve the problems I mentionned with the move and rename
>> operations, I think.
>> thoughts ?
> Sounds good. Pretty sure that AD uses UUID references everywhere too, 
> for similar reasons.
> I've suggested a few times in the past that LDAP needs a 
> UUIDAndProvisionalName syntax. The UUID would always be present; the 
> DN may be present but may or may not be correct/up to date. (Of 
> course, it may seem senseless to carry a DN around if it isn't always 
> going to be correct, but the point is to reserve a space to put it for 
> when you do know the correct name, that's all.)
Funny enough, I was also thinking about a similat solution, but I would 
have named it something like UUIDOrProvisionalName :) So that you can 
store either an UUID or a DN.

The problem now is that the existing AT subschemaSubentry and 
collectiveAttributeSubentries have a DN syntax... So I had to create two 
new AT to store an UUID.

May be the RFC 3671/2 need an update ?

Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message