Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Message-ID: <4DF8B6A6.3030706@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:41:58 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?RW1tYW51ZWwgTMOpY2hhcm55?= <elecharny@apache.org>
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
Organization: The Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Is this intended, or should we consider that is a bug ?
References: <4DF89D31.6090902@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimJ5MzAmnmXj4JnfMSRFaXzZN-LsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DF89FCD.5010803@apache.org>
 <BANLkTimzqc5wdjWBiz8qKjJNRD9boUAwOw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimzqc5wdjWBiz8qKjJNRD9boUAwOw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 6/15/11 2:09 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny<elecharny@apache.org>  wrote:
>> On 6/15/11 2:01 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecharny@gmail.com>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering if the following code snippet is just a bug, or if this was
>>>> intended :
>>>>
>>>>     public PresenceEvaluator( PresenceNode node, Store<Entry, ID>    db,
>>>> SchemaManager schemaManager )
>>>>         throws Exception
>>>>     {
>>>>         this.db = db;
>>>>         this.node = node;
>>>>         this.schemaManager = schemaManager;
>>>>         this.attributeType = node.getAttributeType();
>>>>
>>>>         if ( db.hasUserIndexOn( attributeType ) )
>>>>         {
>>>>             idx = db.getPresenceIndex();
>>>>         }
>>>>         else
>>>>         {
>>>>             idx = null;
>>>>         }
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>> In my case, the AttributeType is ObjectClass, which is a System index. I
>>>> find it extremely doubtful that we want to set idx to null in this very
>>>> case.
>>> This is valid code for the general case when you don't know what the
>>> attributeType is. If the attributeType is not indexed then we cannot
>>> use the presence index for =* evaluation. In the case of objectClass
>>> this does seem moot but this code operates on all cases so it's valid.
>>>
>>> Does this explanation make sense?
>> Yes, but the ObjectClass AT *is* indexed, so why don't we set the idx to
>> point on the ObjectClass index ? This is what I don't understand.
>>
>> I was expecting such code :
>>
>>
>>
>>        if ( db.hasUserIndexOn( attributeType ) || ( db.hasSystemIndexOn(
>> attributeType ) )
>>        {
>>            idx = db.getPresenceIndex();
>>        }
>>        else
>>        {
>>            idx = null;
>>        }
> OK I see what you mean. ObjectClass is a system index. Yes you are
> right here. We changed this and did not update this code. I did not
> understand this situation in my last post - my apologies.

Interesting debugging session :)

     public boolean evaluateEntry( Entry entry ) throws Exception
     {
         if ( db.hasSystemIndexOn( attributeType ) )
         {
             // we don't maintain a presence index for objectClass, 
entryUUID, and entryCSN
             // however as every entry has such an attribute this 
evaluator always evaluates to true
             return true;
         }


Seems like the idx can be null in this very case, as it's handled 
elsewhere in the code (here, attributeType is ObjectClass).

So my initial mail is now answered : it's intended.

Thanks guys !

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com