[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Supported RFC's and "features"

Smith, Matt wrote: 
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 14:59 -0800, Howard Chu wrote:
...

I suppose we need to update our published roadmap. I don't consider SSS or VLV
to be particularly important or well-designed features. In fact OpenLDAP has
an RFC-compliant implementation of SSS which is a pure no-op; this is
perfectly compliant because the SSS spec is so utterly useless in real
directories. Since VLV requires SSS, it is IMO equally useless or at least
seriously flawed, and I have a strong aversion to implementing flawed designs.
(Never mind all the other flawed designs we're forced to live with already...)


I see one valuable use for SSS - guaranteed search return order.
Regardless of the sort algorithm, knowing that searches will always
return entries in the same order allows for easy comparison, merge
sorts, or differentials with another list - as in necessary during the
reconciliation or join phases of provisioning.

Or is this a bad application of SSS?

I think someone else already replied that the client library already handles sorting of results. There's nothing that depends on the server handling this in the application you're talking about.

--
  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.  http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun        http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP     http://www.openldap.org/project/