[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: preserve value order with referential integrity overlay?
Zhang Weiwu wrote:
One dump question, the draft you composed expires at end of 2006, does
that mean this draft will no longer become RFC and (thus?) have no
The draft is intended to document what we've already implemented in OpenLDAP.
The OpenLDAP implementation will continue to exist regardless of the document
There are some flaws/errors in that draft that make it unsuitable for general
purpose usage. I haven't had time to address those points, and since what we
have already works for us, I haven't had much incentive to make time for it.
Having to require client modification might be the big reason to not
having it implemented, I guess.
å 2007-08-14äç 02:01 -0700ïHoward Chuåéï
Zhang Weiwu wrote:
That is a complete misuse of LDAP. Attributes are *SETS* of values. "Sets" are
inherently unordered. The LDAP and X.500 specs and plenty of other docs tell
you not to rely on the order in which values are returned.
I deployed an LDAP system and a set of applications around it that is
highly sensitive to the order of values, e.g first telephoneNumber must
be the main contact method, first value of companyRepresentative must be
the DN of the main contact person.
What's the best way to solve this problem? I can only think of 1) try to
modify source code of slapo-refint to make it maintain order (big
problem, never worked on C source code before,
Obviously not the way to go.
or 2) try to use several
Clumsy, and only feasible if you have a fixed limit on the number of values you
want to manage.
attributes like "FirstCompanyRepresentative",
You might consider something like
which is only slightly less clumsy, and that spec needs to be revised anyway.
Whatever solution you choose is going to require your clients to be modified to
adapt to the solution.
-- 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/