Kurt Zeilenga wrote:

On May 24, 2008, at 2:18 AM, ando@sys-net.it wrote:

...

I believe the actual implementation should be... implementation dependent :), provided it is consistent.

I agree there is a slight inconsistency.

A client can delete a listed superclass but not add an superclass of a listed attribute.

One could argue that both be considered invalid operations. However, it would be reasonable to consider an add of an unlisted superclass and a delete of a listed superclass to be valid. However, a add of an already listed class should be invalid and a delete of a unlisted class should always be invalid.

Agreed. With respect to the current implementation, we're back to square one, since the issue is related to using objectSubClassMatch() to check for the presence of a value. Any superclass is returned as present no matter if it is actually present or just implied. From your answers, it seems that treating objectClass specially should be the solution, and the fix I'm proposing goes in this direction. Should I commit it, or does anyone see any side effect?

p.

Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team

SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it --------------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Email: pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it ---------------------------------------