[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: The 'any' attribute type
I'm fascinated by the ;valuesSince-xxx option. Are we moving towards
stored procedures? What are the OIDs for the attribute descriptions?
1.1.<valuesSince>.1999.8.30.11.25?
I for one will be sorry to see the passing of the 'static' directory.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Sermersheim [SMTP:JIMSE@novell.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 1999 11:01 AM
> To: mcs@netscape.com
> Cc: <; <
> Subject: Re: The 'any' attribute type
>
> Ok, I'll quit teasing. There are three I think, (someone else here is
> defining them) They look something like this (these are only vague
> descriptions):
>
> This one is used to request that a value's CSN is returned, prepended
> to the value like T#S#R#s:attrvalue (see LDUP for meaning of TSRs)
> myAttr;valueCSN
>
> This one is used to ask that deleted values be returned.
> myAttr;deletedValues
>
> This one is used to ask that only values, update since xxx be
> returned.
> myAttr;valuesSince-xxx (where xxx is a GMT spec)
>
> I know... Why not just use controls? In the first case (valueCSN) it's
> handy for LDIF and in the other two cases, it's a solution that
> doesn't require changes/additions to the client.
>
> I didn't want to introduce the specific attr type options because I
> was afraid of falling down a rathole and not addressing the 'all'
> attrs thing.
>
> Jim
>
> >>> Mark Smith <mcs@netscape.com> 8/27/99 5:12:10 PM >>>
> Jim Sermersheim wrote:.
> >
> > ...
> > The attribute type option I want to use this with, is one that
> affects
> > the transmission of any value, regardless of syntax.
>
> I'll reserve final judgment until I see your proposal, but offhand
> such
> an attribute type option scares me a bit (it sounds like using it will
> be a big change for clients and servers). I am not a big fan of
> ;binary
> even.
>
> --
> Mark Smith
> iPlanet Directory Architect / Sun-Netscape Alliance
> My words are my own, not my employer's. Got LDAP?