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

[Fwd: Fwd: LDAP backend]

Dr. Pierangelo Masarati    mailto:ando@sys-net.it
Developer, SysNet s.n.c.   http://www.sys-net.it
--- Begin Message ---
Mark Valence wrote:

> >  > At 04:24 PM 2/4/01 +0100, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> >  >
> >  > >I was thinking about the possible problems your idea might discover.
> >  > >In detail, how are you going to ensure the remapped
> >attributes/objectClasses
> >  > >share the same, or a compatible, definition? What about attribute syntax?
> That's a job for the person setting up the mappings.

The point I'm trying to make is that in some cases, there might not be
an exact equivalence between attributes one wishes to map, e.g. one could
wish to map attributes with slightly different syntaxes (in this case the
looser syntax would allow the stricter), or a single-value attribute to a
multi-value attribute (single-value is a subset of multi-value). I agree
when you say that it is the responsibility of the person setting up the
mappings, however, a check and a caveat would be advisable.

> The main reason for doing this remapping is to get schema compliance
> with the local slapd's schema, although it might be at the expense of
> some information.  This is a choice that is made by the person in
> charge of the local slapd, and we are just giving them the tools.
> I think ideally the local slapd would download the schema of the
> target LDAP server and use that for checking the particular
> backend/suffix.  This would require two things:  per-backend schemas
> and dynamic schema updates.  These are certainly possible, but are
> larger projects than remapping.

The TODO list is getting longer and longer...


Dr. Pierangelo Masarati    mailto:ando@sys-net.it
Developer, SysNet s.n.c.   http://www.sys-net.it

--- End Message ---