Re: current control combination proposals

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 11:08 PM 5/16/2004, Chris Ridd wrote:
>On 17/5/04 2:44 am, Ramsay, Ron <Ron.Ramsay@ca.com> wrote:
>> constrainViolation is only appropriate for update operations.
>
>So far.

Which is a good reason not to do that.

But Ron's point is quite valid.  ConstraintViolation has a well
established meaning and expanding it to include other error
conditions would cause problems.  A client would have no way
to determine if the error indicated an update problem or
indicated a control problem.  Likewise for most other existing
result codes.

>It would be much nicer of course if result codes were somehow extensible,
>but that's another problem altogether :-)

The resultCode enumeration is extensible.  However, we should
attempt to revise the specification to resolve whatever
issues exist without resorting to adding a new code.

It has been reported that existing implementations return
protocolError here.  What's broke with that?

Kurt