RE: subentries comments

["Steven Legg" <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>]

Rob,

Rob Byrne wrote:
> Steven Legg wrote:
> > Rob Byrne wrote:
> > > I think that will be
> > > very painful for
> > > manageability.
> >
> > I haven't found it to be so.
> 
> Mmm...what you haven't had you don't miss :-), or maybe it's 
> that in x500
> you can always use the read operation.

Neither. Our clients for regular users hide the administrative details
from view. The users never need to see the subentries so user searches
never ask for them. Even when the client needs to fetch subschema
information it can do so without asking for subentries because subschema
operational attributes have collective attribute semantics and therefore
can be read from any regular entry in the scope of the subschema area.

Our administrative clients mostly hide the details subentries from view
also. Most actions are couched in terms of the administrative point entries
instead. The client code then works out what that means in terms of the
X.500 administrative model. That code always knows whether it is looking
for subentries or regular entries. We haven't had a situation where we
need to search for both simultaneously.

Regards,
Steven