[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (ITS#7226) olcAuditlogFile At dos not accept multiple values

> masarati@aero.polimi.it wrote:
>> In general, I also prefer to have NO matching rules associated to attrs
>> designed for purposes that do not require matching
> Why?

In general, configuring a system means to write something as a whole, not
bit by bit, since it works as intended only when everything is in place. 
Changing a small bit can have unexpected semantic impact.

There are exceptions (either theoretically, or practically).  For example,
ACLs: occasionally one needs to tweak ACLs (in this case, small
modifications can have tremendous impact on the functionality of totally
unrelated parts as well), but ACLs need to evolve and adapt to needs. 
Another example are indexes.  Nonetheless, I believe the best way to
modify ACLs is through "replace".  Fortunately, the most important aspect
of ACLs  is their order; in this case, the administrator can leverage the
X-ORDERED feature.

For exceptions, and for all attrs that may legitimately need to be
routinely modified, I concur having a well-defined matching rule is

> As said it's useful for collision detection in case of a modify. So at
> least
> every multi-valued attribute should have an EQUALITY matching rule.

"replace" is your friend when managing configuration.

> If in doubt which matching rule to use one could choose the stricter one
> as
> default, e.g. prefer caseExact over caseIgnore.

Well, I'm afraid there will always be someone complaining because we chose
caseExact instead of caseIgnore.

Of course, my 2c.