Re: Summary of issues with the Java LDAP API and resolutions

[Rob Weltman <robw@coscend.com>]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> >> The scope defaulting is different for search referrals than for
> >> search continuations.  In a referral, no explicit scope implies
> >> the client should reuse the prior scope.  In a continuation, no
> >> explicit scope implies the client should use a base derived from
> >> the prior base (base->base, one->base, subtree->base).
> >
> >  That has already been discussed on this list. The API implementation delivers the referral correctly rewritten so the client doesn't need to worry about it,
> 
> I must have missed this point, I was under the impression that this was
> a low-level API which provided direct access to all values transferred
> by the protocol.  Though I have concerns with this API not providing
> a low-level API, the approach you suggest will work (but will limit
> the user as all high-level APIs naturally do).  Anyways, I believe the
> TS needs much more clarification as to what is expected of implementations
> in this area.

  If there was ambiguity in how referrals are to be rewritten, or if there was greater value in the freedom to botch the scope field of a referral URL than in the correct rewriting of the URL, we could put the onus on the developer to handle the referral rewriting. But since RFC 2251 is clear on what needs to be done, it is better handled by the API implementation. A determined botcher can still change the URL delivered by the API implementation if doing manual referral chasing, but it requires extra effort on his/her part.

Rob