Re: A tricky matched values problem

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 12:48 30.09.99 +0100, Anthony Hodson wrote:
> Hi, David! Erik!!
>
> The solution to this which is given in the FDAM says (to counter this
> kind of problem):
>
> "The matchedValuesOnly argument indicates that certain attribute values
> are to be omitted from the returned entry information. Specifically,
> where an attribute to be returned is multi-valued, and some but not all
> of the values of that attribute contributed to the search filter, in its
> last effective form (i.e. taking relaxed matching rules into account)
> returning TRUE via filter items other than present, then the values that
> did not so contribute are omitted from the returned entry information.
> An attribute value is said to contribute to the search filter if it is
> matched by any non-negated filter item in the filter (see 7.8.1),
> whether or not omission of that item would have led to a different
> outcome in the selection of the containing entry."
>
> Does this resolve the problem?

It seems to me that matchedValuesOnly is asked to perform tasks of 
intuiting the user's state of mind, which usually means that there's 
something wrong with the design.

What about redefining the thing as an attribute return filter:

INPUT:
  Attribute search filter

OUTPUT:
  Only those values of that attribute, for all selected entries, that match
  the filter.

If the intent of the

(OR(AND(mail=sean.mullan@sun.com)
       (telephoneNumber=47))
   (cn=Sean*))

was to return all persons named Sean, and point out the one who had this
email address, it could be written as

(OR(AND(mail=sean.mullan@sun.com)
       (telephoneNumber=47)
   (cn=Sean*)

RETURNFILTERED (mail=sean.mullan@sun.com)

this would return all people named Sean, and the email address for the
one who matched that.

If the intent was something else, one could state that.
Simpler? Better?

                     Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no