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

Re: (ITS#4991) pcache and rwm don't play well together

Ralf Haferkamp wrote:

>> It used to be a requirement that any data passing through back-ldap be
>> defined in the local server's schema. Recently that requirement was 
>> relaxed. I don't see how you can normalize them safely, without knowing
>> their schema constraints.
> Yeah, there of course case were you can't normalize safely. Probably that 
> feature should get a config-switch (defaulting to "no normalization"). But 
> there are a lot of case where normalizing according to the constraints of the 
> mapped attributetype should "just work".
> E.g. we have to proxy here for a directory that uses all kinds of strange 
> attribute types instead of the well defined existing types (e.g. it uses an 
> attributetype "fullname" instead of "displayname" or "cn") and we know that 
> we can savely map them to one of the well defined attribute types. But we are 
> a bit reluctant to pollute the schema of the server (which also host other 
> databases) with those attribute types.

The design of slapo-rwm(5) is based on: do things as correct as
possible, but don't be too clever.  What you mean makes sense; however,
in most cases when slapo-rwm(5) is needed there are chances data has
some quirk.  So I'd leave an option whether or not to require strict
normalization (this option could be per instance, or even per mapping
rule).  In fact, slapo-rwm(5) needs to be tolerant about cases where
nothing is known about the source data, and mapping is sort of a hack.

Cheers, p.

Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
OpenLDAP Core Team

SysNet s.r.l.
via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
Office:  +39 02 23998309
Mobile:  +39 333 4963172
Email:   pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it