Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/servers/slapd
Modified Files: syncrepl.c 1.505 -> 1.506
Log Message: alreadyExists is a legitimate result code (further improve ITS#6472 commit; also fix ITS#6528)
Two comments:
1) syncrepl_add_glue() and syncrepl_add_glue_ancestors() should be renamed slapd_add_glue() and slapd_add_glue_ancestors(); the latter should be exposed as well, as it may be useful to other modules.
2) syncrepl_add_glue_ancestors() returning alreadyExists when the immediate parent entry exists is pointless, as it does not indicate an error, while the existence of a non-immediate ancestor would not be notified to the caller. BTW, this caused ITS#6528 (my fault, of course).
p.
--On Sunday, April 18, 2010 7:21 PM +0200 masarati@aero.polimi.it wrote:
Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/servers/slapd
Modified Files: syncrepl.c 1.505 -> 1.506
Log Message: alreadyExists is a legitimate result code (further improve ITS#6472 commit; also fix ITS#6528)
Two comments:
- syncrepl_add_glue() and syncrepl_add_glue_ancestors() should be renamed
slapd_add_glue() and slapd_add_glue_ancestors(); the latter should be exposed as well, as it may be useful to other modules.
- syncrepl_add_glue_ancestors() returning alreadyExists when the
immediate parent entry exists is pointless, as it does not indicate an error, while the existence of a non-immediate ancestor would not be notified to the caller. BTW, this caused ITS#6528 (my fault, of course).
Are you planning on doing #1 & #2 prior to 2.4.22? Or are they ok for now as well?
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Two comments:
- syncrepl_add_glue() and syncrepl_add_glue_ancestors() should be
renamed slapd_add_glue() and slapd_add_glue_ancestors(); the latter should be exposed as well, as it may be useful to other modules.
- syncrepl_add_glue_ancestors() returning alreadyExists when the
immediate parent entry exists is pointless, as it does not indicate an error, while the existence of a non-immediate ancestor would not be notified to the caller. BTW, this caused ITS#6528 (my fault, of course).
Are you planning on doing #1 & #2 prior to 2.4.22? Or are they ok for now as well?
No. 2.4.22 should be fine as it is now. Thanks, p.
-
masarati＠aero.polimi.it -
Quanah Gibson-Mount