Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 39977 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2007 13:12:47 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 23 Jul 2007 13:12:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 33377 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jul 2007 13:12:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-users-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 33351 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jul 2007 13:12:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@directory.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 33340 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jul 2007 13:12:48 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:12:48 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [194.25.216.40] (HELO scrat.ecrmforce.biz) (194.25.216.40) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:12:46 -0700 Received: from [172.16.156.161] (unknown [172.16.156.161]) by scrat.ecrmforce.biz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139B077C45 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:12:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46A4A934.5020901@webunity.de> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:12:20 +0200 From: Markus Pohle User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@directory.apache.org Subject: Re: Difference between the following ldif files References: <46A23673.4050804@webunity.de> <46A488D2.9219.0044.0@salfordsoftware.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi Emmanuel, yes I did use replication, as Martin suggested. Markus Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb: > Hi Markus, Martin > > I suddenly realized that some objectClasses were duplicated (2.5.4.3 > and cn) i the first LDIF file. How possibly did you obtained this > extract ? It seems to be a bug. > > Did you used replication as suggested by Martin ? > > On 7/23/07, Martin Alderson wrote: >> >> Hi Markus, >> >> Sorry for the delay with this message, I am having some problems with >> the mailing lists at the moment so I don't get to see messages for 1-2 >> days. >> >> I suspect your problem is caused by the replication service >> (mitosis). When it is enabled it seems to like adding the naming >> component (e.g. cn, dc) with OID's to entries when they are created. >> I don't believe they are necessary but I don't think they will cause >> you any problems either. If you want, I think you can stop this >> happening by removing the following lines from >> org.apache.directory.mitosis.operation.AddEntryOperation.execute0: >> >> String rdn = normalizedName.get( normalizedName.size() - 1 ); >> // Remove the attribute first in case we're using a buggy >> // AttributesImpl which doesn't replace old attributes >> // when we put a new one. >> entry.remove( NamespaceTools.getRdnAttribute( rdn ) ); >> entry.put( NamespaceTools.getRdnAttribute( rdn ), >> NamespaceTools.getRdnValue( rdn ) ); >> >> It seems to be quite specific in what it is doing but I can't really >> see why it should be done! >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> Markus Pohle 21/07/2007 17:38 >>> >> Hi list, >> >> I used a ApacheDS in version 1.5.0 (officially released version >> downloaded from directory website) on my server and created my on >> partition with the following ldap structure: >> >> dn: dc=DOUGLASHOLDING >> objectClass: domain >> objectClass: extensibleObject >> objectClass: top >> dc: douglasholding >> >> dn: dc=VERWALTUNG,dc=DOUGLASHOLDING >> objectClass: domain >> objectClass: top >> 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.25: verwaltung >> dc: VERWALTUNG >> >> dn: cn=users,dc=VERWALTUNG,dc=DOUGLASHOLDING >> objectClass: organizationalRole >> objectClass: top >> 2.5.4.3: users >> cn: users >> >> dn: dc=APPLICATIONS,dc=DOUGLASHOLDING >> objectClass: domain >> objectClass: top >> 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.25: applications >> dc: APPLICATIONS >> >> dn: cn=cms,dc=APPLICATIONS,dc=DOUGLASHOLDING >> objectClass: organizationalRole >> objectClass: top >> 2.5.4.3: cms >> cn: cms >> >> Then I needed to switch to apacheds-1.5.1-snapshot release that Alex >> Karasulu due to apacheds-tools problems with version 1.5.0 build for me. >> >> And what I found out browsing the ldap schema using LDAP Studio on the >> apacheds-1.5.1-snapshot is the following: >> >> dn: dc=DOUGLASHOLDING >> objectClass: domain >> objectClass: extensibleObject >> objectClass: top >> dc: douglasholding >> >> dn: dc=VERWALTUNG,dc=DOUGLASHOLDING >> objectClass: domain >> objectClass: top >> dc: VERWALTUNG >> >> dn: cn=users,dc=VERWALTUNG,dc=DOUGLASHOLDING >> objectClass: organizationalRole >> objectClass: top >> cn: users >> >> dn: dc=APPLICATIONS,dc=DOUGLASHOLDING >> objectClass: domain >> objectClass: top >> dc: APPLICATIONS >> >> dn: cn=cms,dc=APPLICATIONS,dc=DOUGLASHOLDING >> objectClass: organizationalRole >> objectClass: top >> cn: cms >> >> And here comes the question: >> What are these additional objectclasses for that can be seen in the >> upper example of the ldap structure, e.g.: >> >> 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.25: applications >> 2.5.4.3: cms >> >> >> What are they good for? Are they essentially/neccessary? And why can the >> ldap schema on the apacheds-1.5.1-snapshot run without them? >> Any explanation is really appreciated. >> >> TIA >> Markus >> >> ---- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---- >> >> >> >> ---- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---- >> >> >> > >