[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [ldapext] New I-D: 'untypedObject' object class
I'm curious whether anybody else sees any particular benefit or drawback to
borrowing container. If container really is provided by only those two
vendors -- and I made no attempt to discover this -- it probably doesn't
make any difference to most folks if a totally new object class is
introduced and would avoid any potential conflict with the private
definitions of this object class. On the other hand, if a meaningful
number of people have borrowed "container" on their own and extended their
server's schema, it might be advantageous. IBM and Microsoft would have to
decide what to do if the definition is expanded to include description,
searchGuide, and enhancedSearchGuide.
John McMeeking
Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> wrote on 06/10/2004 01:06:11
PM:
> John McMeeking writes:
>
> > Some LDAP servers ship with a "container" object class. It might
> > have come from Active Directory; at least they use it. Perhaps we
> > could standardize container, rather than introducing a different
> > objectclass. I know "container" is shipped with more than just
> > Active Directory, but I don't know how wide-spread it is.
>
> Google found two different 'container's (+ 600 more results):
>
> IBM LDAP Directory Schema:
> ( 1.3.18.0.2.6.28 NAME 'container'
> DESC 'An object that can contain other objects.'
> SUP top STRUCTURAL
> MUST (cn) )
>
> Active Directory:
> ( 1.2.840.113556.1.3.23 NAME 'container'
> SUP top STRUCTURAL
> MUST (cn)
> MAY (schemaVersion $ defaultClassStore) )
>
> schemaVersion and defaultClassStore are Active Directory
> attributes; I'd prefer to avoid them.
>
> I could ask IBM to standardize their 'container'. I don't think
> anyone else should standardize their object class, in case they
> want to be able to change it someday. (Never mind that one isn't
> supposed to do that; people do it anyway.)
>
> I do miss some of the attributes I added, though. In particular
> 'description'. And 'enhancedSearchGuide' & 'searchGuide', at
> least in theory:-) I've never used them, but it looks like they
> should be present in objects intented to have children.
>
> --
> Hallvard
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext