Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.51 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=QPLmv8N2xsUKe09Kq+PLnceeS390fft4/OZfL6YOAiwK2Qh9/CnRzXQ+9b8KLKz8AW
         /vj5Y42I8N31yE9AoT0hgPiWh8nopAA0zhqtGG219VQXnkE3zJZWkOAcjGkeCn8A55eG
         Y5HOMMxPKg95Vnx9TzmIe8qxXnKRwoZUYH1KU=
Message-ID: <4D0A5C9B.9040608@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:38:19 +0100
From: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: AP roles : should we support SubSchema in 2.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi,

currently we are supporting the following roles :
- AccessControl
- CollectiveAttributes
- TriggerExecution
- SubSchema

The last one is just present, but we don't do anything with it. The 
rational for such a role is to define 'namespaces' (kindof), ie some DIT 
areas with a dedicated schema. This would be interesting as we might use 
more than one schema in a single server.

The problem is that the server does not support more than one server.

I would suggest we don't manage SubSchema in the next version, as I'm 
pretty sure no one out there will need such a feature any time soon.

Wdyt ?

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L�charny
www.iktek.com