[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Abstract object class
yes I agree with you. If you consider LDAP Server as property based
service provider where directory entry names or RDN is property-value
pair,programmatically it would be difficult to give proper name to a
Directory entry. If we make a Distinguished attribute
also a mandatory or MUST property things would be easy. While developing
LDAP based application , Locality object class always created a problem
as far as directory entry naming scheme is concerned.
Erik Skovgaard wrote:
>
> Senthil,
>
> See below.
>
> At 09:23 98/11/05 +0530, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Erik Skovgaard wrote:
> >>
> [stuff deleted]
> >
> >so if I add value like
> >"(employee-oid NAME 'employee' DESC 'User Defined Class'
> >MUST(objectclass) MAY( cn $sn $uid) )"
> >to the attribute "objectclasses" of subschema entry, will the DSA
> >consider this new objectclass a class derived from 'top'
>
> In fact, this may not work. I would have to look it up, but I would think
> that the syntax for the objectclasses attribute in subschema entries is
> OID. The DSA will always assume that it can handle 'top', so it does not
> need to be listed in the subschema.
>
> BTW, in your example, I would also make the distinguished attribute a
> 'must'. There is one example in the standard object classes where the RDN
> is not a mandatory attribute: locality. But this is merely a matter of
> shortcomings in the syntax. Locality entries would, of course use a
> distinguished attribute of SOPN or L.
>
> Cheers, ....Erik.
> -------------------------------------
> Erik Skovgaard
> GeoTrain Corp.
> Enterprise Directory Consulting and Training
> http://www.geotrain.com
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >thanks
> >> >Senthil Kumar
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >