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

Re: (Dumb?) X-ORDERED 'VALUES' question

--On Friday, August 24, 2007 5:03 PM +0200 Pierangelo Masarati <ando@sys-net.it> wrote:

I'm implementing the Control syntax in draft-chu-ldap-logschema, which
is used for the reqControls and reqRespControls as X-ORDERED 'VALUES',
and I'm having a little bit of trouble in understanding how I should
encode values.  Right now, I'm putting the DER encoded controls in the
pretty values, and the control OID in the normalized values as per the
objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch equality matching rule.  However,
it's not clear whether I should put the ordering prefix in either value.
  If I do, matching fails because test_filter() ignores the fact that an
attribute may be ordered; in fact, it uses value_match() instead of
ordered_value_match().  I suspect this is a bug, but I might be missing
something __really__ obvious...

Maybe unrelated, but this reminds me of the issue I ran into with valsort where adding ordering made it so that I couldn't search on the non-weighted values in the attr if it gets indexed, essentially requiring there to be two attributes for any weighted attribute if you needed indexing. For example "ou" and a private namespace "zimbraOU" or something.



Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra, Inc
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration