[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#4770) monitoringslapd.sdf patch
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: (ITS#4770) monitoringslapd.sdf patch
- From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:27:28 -0800
- Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
- In-reply-to: <200612072123.kB7LNG1F086369@boole.openldap.org>
- References: <200612072123.kB7LNG1F086369@boole.openldap.org>
At 01:23 PM 12/7/2006, email@example.com wrote:
>> Full_Name: Gavin Henry
>> Version: 2.3.30
>> OS: FC6
>> URL: http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/admin-guide-monitoring.patch
>> Submission from: (NULL) (22.214.171.124)
>> Hi all,
>> Monitoring section updated. Please review and provide feedback.
>At the moment the only comment I have is regarding back-monitor itself,
>not the doc: I question the decision to define the monitor info
>attributes as operational instead of user attributes. Requiring the use
>of "+" to return all of the monitored info seems pretty unfriendly,
>particularly since it causes the return of actual operational attributes
>that are completely irrelevant to the purpose of monitoring. I.e., the
>monitor info should be considered to be dynamically generated user
>attributes, not operational attributes.
[moved to devel]
Well, from a data model perspective, the attributes seems to
belong to directory system agent, not user applications. Their
values do change at the whim of the directory system agent.
Also, if they were user applications attributes, they couldn't
disallow user modification in their descriptions (modification
would have to be denied by other means).
I do note that these attributes really should have usage
dSAOperation not directoryOperation.