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

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

Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--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.

I suspect the same issue will exist with ordered values, but with ordered values we can actually fix it since the schema for the attribute lets us know that special treatment is needed. With valsort, nothing outside of the overlay knows that anything special is going on.
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/