Re: Comments on draft-ryan-java-schema-02

[Manish Gupta <manishg@cisco.com>]

I did not intend to store multiple serialzied Java objects in one LDAP entry. 

Perhaps an example will help clarify my question/comment. Let us say that I
have 2 different Java objects, o1 and o2, corresponding to the same Java
class, Foo. Now if I wanted to store the serialized form of both of these
Java objects in an LDAP directory, I would have to store them in different
portions(containers) of the directory as the RDN of each of them would be
Foo (its javaClassName).

Manish
At 02:48 PM 5/19/99 +0100, Vincent Ryan wrote:
>Manish Gupta wrote:
>> 
>> It seems to me that with the schema for the javaSerializedObject defined as
>> 
>> ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.42.2.27.4.2.5
>>          NAME 'javaSerializedObject'
>>          DESC 'Java serialized object'
>>          SUP javaObject
>>          AUXILIARY
>>          MUST ( javaSerializedData )
>>        )
>> 
>> multiple, serialized objects corresponding to teh same Java class need to
>> be stored in different containers (since their javaClassName will be the
>> same). If that is correct that seems like a strong restriction to me. Am I
>> missing something here?
>> 
>> Manish Gupta
>
>In this schema each Java object is stored in its own LDAP entry.
>The javaSerializedData attribute is single-valued. If several
>Java objects were stored in a single LDAP entry then an additional
>mechanism would be required to resolve the ambiguity and extract
>the intended object from a set of objects.
>
>It's simpler, and more flexible, to maintain a one-to-one corresponence.
>