-----Original Message-----
From:
vinnie@oasis.ireland.sun.com
[mailto:vinnie@oasis.ireland.sun.com]On
Behalf Of Vincent Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 3:38 AM
To: Manish
Gupta
Cc: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Subject: Re: Schema for Java objects
and AD
(draft-ryan-java-schema-01.rev.txt)
> Manish Gupta
wrote:
>
> One of my collegaues just came across the following
schema extension
> restrictions placed by AD.
>
> From
"Extending the Schema" document:
>
> "You cannot add a new
mustContain to a class (directly or through
> inheritance by adding an
auxiliary class)"
>
> Thus, I am unable to extend AD to accomodate
the schema proposed in
> draft-ryan-java-schema-01.rev.txt. The javaObject
abstract class has
> the mustContain attribute javaClassName and all aux
classes such as
> javaSerializedObject, etc. are derived from
javaObject.
>
> In this case I tend to think Microsoft has gotten it
right. I dont
> very much like the concept of mustContain attributes in
aux. classes.
>
> Comments?
>
> Manish Gupta
LDAP
follows the X.500 data model and that model permits
mandatory and optional
attributes to be defined for auxiliary
object classes. Several such classes
are defined in RFC-2256:
strongAuthenticationUser,
certificationAuthority.
BTW I notice that the AD schema already defines
an auxiliary
object class called 'mailRecipient' which contains a
mandatory
'cn' attribute.
[Manish] That is correct. Unfortunately, AD forces you to define the association between an auxiliary class and a structural class apriori. When we tried to associate the javaSerialiazedObject with the javaContainer the request was rejected by the DS. It worked fine when we changed the mustContain attributes to mayContain. So, my question is how do we proceed forward since we do need to support AD as well?
Manish