[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       forgerock-opendj
Subject:    [Opendj] Schema definitions and matching rules
From:       michael () stroeder ! com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael_Str=F6der?=)
Date:       2011-12-21 6:51:59
Message-ID: 4EF17F3F.3060507 () stroeder ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Matthew Swift wrote:
> Personally, I think that the lack of per-syntax default matching rules
> in LDAP is a usability bug in the standard. Systems should always be
> engineered for the common case (i.e. least surprise), yet it's pretty
> exceptional to not want to be able to perform matching.

According to the standard I think each LDAP server implementation is 
free to have a default set for matching rules for a particular syntax. 
But IMO you should then publish the matching rules applied in the 
subschema subentry. Maybe you could make this configurable behaviour.

When generating the diff between old and new entry my web2ldap looks 
whether EQUALITY matching rule is defined for a certain attribute type 
and it's also published in attributes matchingRules in the subschema 
subentry. In that case old attribute values are explicitly deleted (not 
just the whole attribute).

This is done to provoke collisions on the server during processing the 
modify request tobe more on the safe side in case different users alter 
the same entries. (Additionally the assertion control with appopriate 
filter is sent along with the modify request for that purpose.)

Ciao, Michael.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]