Re: virtual view strategies: replying differently to different clients

[Guillaume Rousse <Guillaume.Rousse@inria.fr>]

Pierangelo Masarati a Ãcrit :
> ----- "Aaron Richton" <richton@nbcs.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> >
> > > First, using a distinct database doesn't allow to provide a virtual
> > view
> > > from a branch in my original database to another branch in the same
> > > database. Meaning, I can't have ou=telephony,dc=myprefix a virtual
> > view
> > > of ou=users,dc=myprefix, I need to use a distinct prefix.
> > Have you tried declaring the ou=telephony,dc=myprefix back-relay 
> > subordinate to dc=myprefix back-$END?
>
> I was about to reply the same, but you anticipated me :)
>
> I've tried the above, and it works as expected as soon as the "relay" statement is omitted.  In fact, it requires the superior database to already exist.  Probably, that test should either be relaxed or moved to db_open().
Actually, subordinate is not really needed, just declaring the inner 
database before the other is OK:
database                relay
suffix                  "ou=telephony,dc=myprefix"
overlay                 rwm
rwm-suffixmassage       "ou=users,dc=myprefix"

database        bdb
suffix          "dc=myprefix"

Making the first one subordinate to the second has the unwanted 
side-effect of having all requests for user starting from top-level 
suffix (example: ldapvi --user '(uid=foo)' now return two users instead 
of one, so I'd likely avoid it.
--
Guillaume Rousse
Moyens Informatiques - INRIA Futurs
Tel: 01 69 35 69 62