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

Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd schema_init.c

My suggestion is that dnNormalize do as much normalizing as
possible such that dnMatch can be strcmp() [or UTF8cmp()].

Does this answer you questions?


At 11:24 AM 2001-12-05, Stig Venaas wrote:
>If we for the different syntaxes had functions that did full
>normalization (folding etc.) those could be used for normalizing
>the attribute values in the DN and also by some of the matching
>code I guess. Some of the matching would be slower if normalization
>were done in advance, but there are also cases where we do
>normalization and matching combined, where one of the arguments is
>the same over and over and it would help if the values were
>normalized in advance (and cached).
>Could dnMatch be done by calling matching routines for the
>different syntaxes for each attribute value? Is it okay to always
>do matching in the attribute values that the DN consists of, or
>is it necessary to use the DN string representation of the values?
>My main question is whether we can normalize the values in the DN
>in the same way we normalize when doing matching. If we have a DN
>say a_n=s(v_n), ... a_1=s(v_1), a_0=s(v_0) (let's forget about
>multivalue RDNs now) and another a_n=w_n, ... a_1=w_1, a_0=w_0,
>aren't they equal if and only if each v_i is equal (equality match
>for the syntax of a_i) to w_i?
>My apologies if what I'm saying is silly, it's based on my naive
>understanding of these things. I really should check the code
>and reread drafts but no time for such.