[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: object class 'alias'

At 01:28 AM 7/15/99 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>Formally, I think alias should have been abstract.
>With no attributes, you can't name it (having a DN for an RDN seems a bit
>....perverted?)
>
>In reality, I've suspected that people treat it like the "anything
>goes" class, adding naming attributes as needed.
>Can some current users of alias disabuse me of this notion, please?

I think 'extensibleObject' should be the "anything goes" class.

As such, I think the use 'alias' object class should be
similiar in syntax to the 'referral' objectclass (as described
in the named referral draft).  To alias "cn=jane,o=abc,c=us" to
"cn=john,o=abc,c=us", one would add this entry to their
directory.

	dn: cn=jane,o=abc,c=us
	cn: jane
	aliasedObjectName: cn=john,o=abc,c=us
	objectclass: alias
	objectclass: extensibleObject

Maybe what we need is "rdnObject" which allows values of
the RDN attribute type to be included in the entry.

	dn: XXX=jane,o=abc,c=us
	XXX: jane
	aliasedObjectName: cn=john,o=abc,c=us
	objectclass: alias
	objectclass: rdnObject

(in this case, rdnObject would allow to contain XXX attributes.

	Kurt