[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Models: Aux class deletion
Yeah, I mis-read Models to say that one could add an aux class if it = is a superclass of an allowed aux class.
So in the case where Aux1 gets implicitly added, if it is not = explicitly removed along with Aux2, the server will return objectClassViola= tion.
>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" = 3/8/04 4:32:42 PM >>>
At 02:56 PM 3/8/2004, Jim Sermersheim = wrote:
>From reading the Models draft, we can't find how to handle = this scenario:
>1) Aux2 subclasses Aux1
>2) Aux2 and = Aux1 are added to the objectClass attribute of an entry
>3) Aux2 is = allowed by the DIT content rule for the structural object class of the = entry, so the add (or modify) succeeds
>4) Aux2 is removed from the = entry's objecClass
As servers are required to ensure the result of = the modification
still conforms to the schema and the schema doesn't = allow
aux1 to allowed (except as a superclass of a allowed subclass),
the operation must fail.
>Should Aux1 remain in the objectClass = attribute when Aux2 is removed?
Well, given both were explicitly = added, I'd say that the requesting
only aux2 to be removed is an error. = It clearly leaves a
non-allowed auxiliary in place.
Now, if Aux1 = was only implicitly added, one could argue that it
was implicitly = deleted as well. However, it seems that view
wasn't supported by = consensus. Hence, auxiliary classes must
be explicitly removed even = when their addition was implicit.