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

Re: objectClass inheritance

Tony Earnshaw wrote:
stefan egger wrote:

I am object oriented an very glad to see that OpenLDAP now goes in this direction too. It makes things much easier to understand.
I have a design question related to lidf imports.

Since v2.1 OpenLDAP enforces the single structural objectClass, which is mostly inherited from an abstract Objectclass. But I am puzzled by the auxiliary objectClasses.

Do you agree that the scheme design on the ldap server, would not restrict to extend a person (structural) with a sambaAccount (auxiliary) objectClass.
This makes no sense to me. Should that not be restricted trough the schema design?

This is purely my own feeling (philosophical :), but to me the way this is makes perfect sense. I'm comparing it to, let's say, any any person who happens to exist (structural) and needs a bank account (auxiliary); he can give it up and take a post office account (also auxiliary). Or even add a post office account to the bank account.

Much worse, to my mind, is defining a second structural objectclass and then finding you can't remove it again, when you regret having added it. Maybe that's the same (philosophical) as saying "the man has now got a hearing aid, I regret having given him it, I'd like him to hear properly again without it".

Or maybe that's not what you meant ;)

Maybe I should think about all these things more philosophically. You explained excactly what I was not sure about.
But Kurt wrote something about DIT Content Rules. They would restirct what I mentioned in my first mail. But since I have read your lines I am not happy anymore with that. ;-)