[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#4991) pcache and rwm don't play well together
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:32, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> 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.
Ok, I will rework the stuff to have the possibility to enable/disable
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, D-90409 Nuernberg
F: +49-911-74053575 - Ralf.Haferkamp@suse.com