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

Re: nameForms and dITContentRules

>Content rules were added later as a pragmatic way of tweaking the 
>content of an entry but not altering its basic object class. In this way 

That makes sense.  The only problem I remember seeing with this approach of 'extending' object classes is that the content rules aren't inherited by subclasses (but I'm veering off track).

>> you have to also look at its content, naming, and
>> structure rules.  If an entry of objectclass 1.2.3.4 is exported from DIT
>> A, and imported to DIT B (which also supports objectclass 1.2.3.4), the
>> export/import process must be aware of the three X.500 subschema
>> attributes in order to ensure the entry will look/behave the same on both
>> DITs.
>
>Six actually - object classes and content rules govern content, name 
>forms and structure rules govern position in DIT, and attribute types 
>and matching rules govern display and searching.

Hmm, yeah thanks for the correction.  So back to my original (or at least intended) question which is unanswered. *Do LDAP directory vendors and client application writers want to do all of this, or is something more 'lightweight' preferable*?

Jim