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

Re: [Fwd: sUffixAlias]

At 06:26 PM 12/7/00 +0100, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
>> A virtual view, or maybe more appropriately named a virtual naming
>> context would be values provided to it by a virtual user which
>> would derive values from another naming context.  Hence, the
>> X.500 "user" attribute value model would be maintained.

I likely should have said a "virtual subtree" or even an arbitrary
set of "virtual entries".  What I mean here by "virtual" is that
one "virtual" entry is derived from another "normal" entry.  I do
not intend to limit the derivation.  The normal entry is still
left as constructed by the user as it should be.  The virtual
entry is constructed (derived) from the normal entry by what can
be considered a virtual user.  Though the virtual entry would be
accessible (likely read only*) by actual clients, the "user" data
model is upheld as the information provided by the virtual user is
not mucked with.

* if real users where allowed to update the virtual object,
the derivation would have to be, at a minimum, bidirectional.

>In any case, my question is: do you think this feature, of course
>and extended in order to exploit all its implications, may be