[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: The 'any' attribute type
At 10:12 PM 8/26/99 -0700, Rob Weltman wrote:
> We also had the short-lived "preferred language control" a year or two
ago, which would have filled the same purpose but better (as I recall) - it
would have caused the
>most explicit language-tagged attribute subtypes to be returned if there
were any, and otherwise the base (untagged) attributes. That would let you
get a full set of
>attributes back with one search, including "shared" attributes without any
language variants.
>
> When that was killed, we added support for doing it in the client (in
the C and Java LDAP client SDKs).
Why was that control killed? It would certainly meet the requirement to
get all the attributes in a certain language, and not get one's that are in
some unwanted language.
Bruce
>
>Rob
>
>
>Bruce Greenblatt wrote:
>
>> At 07:47 PM 8/26/99 -0500, Mark Wahl wrote:
>> >Fourth,
>> >
>> >What does a client do with foo;lang-ja when it does not know foo? I don't
>> >see the value of an option that allows a client to be sent some subset
of the
>> >attributes that is neither what it asked for nor a subtype of that. We
>> already
>> >have a way of asking for all information. This control is basically
the same
>> >as asking for all attributes whose attribute types have a 'k' in them: the
>> >client might get some information that it expected. This sort of
processing
>> >would seem to be best left up to the client.
>> >
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> I have to disagree with you on this point. There is a definite need for
>> this type of feature. The typical scenario that I use comes from a real
>> scenario (OfficeVision anyone). Consider an LDAP server that is being used
>> as the back end for an address book application. Assume that it is
>> installed at a location in Switzerland. This same server is likely to have
>> some users that want their information in French, some that want it in
>> German, some that want it in Italian, and maybe even some that want it in
>> Swiss or English... There is currently no way to make use of the language
>> tags for this purpose. I see this as being completely different from
>> "asking for all attributes whose attribute types have a 'k' in them". From
>> my perspective it would be very cumbersome for the client to have to get
>> back all of the attributes in every language, sort through them (in random
>> order for each entry) and then display them. Since the server has already
>> tagged the attributes with the language tag, I think that it makes
>> substantially more sense to ask the LDAP server to make use of the
>> information that it has already tagged. I also think that such a feature
>> would make the sort control substantially more useful.
>>
>> That said, I'm not too keen on the OID thing that Jim proposed. Mark's
>> arguments are very persuasive. What was the rationale that my "*;jp"
>> proposal got shot down. I can't remember what it was, and my slow link
>> from home prevents my from searching the archive. If this doesn't work,
>> some company (Novell maybe) could always define an OID under their branch
>> in the tree to mean the same thing that Jim proposed 1.1.1 to be.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> >Mark Wahl, Directory Product Architect
>> >Innosoft International, Inc.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ==============================================
>> Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
>> Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
>> http://www.directory-applications.com
>
>
>
==============================================
Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com