[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: current control combination proposals
On 17/5/04 4:11 pm, Kurt D. Zeilenga <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> wrote:
> 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.
Well, I'm not going to defend this to death. The discussion is interesting
enough without thinking about the error code :-)
>> 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
Not flexibly - there's only a flat number space so different implementations
could easily collide their resultCode extensions.
> 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?
Well, for one thing no protocol's being broken. It seems a bit severe.