No comments on this? So I guess this means I can just go ahead and submit the patch to HEAD for testing? On Monday 04 June 2007 17:13, Ralf Haferkamp wrote: > Hello, > > slightly related to the above ITS, I have found another issue. I am not > sure though if this is a bug or if the behaviour is intended. I have a > setup here were the pcache and rwm-overlay is used on top of back-ldap. > rwm is used to rewrite some Attributetypes unknown to the Schema of the > local server to Attributetypes that are defined in the local server. As the > attribute values from unknown attribute types cannot be normalized by the > proxy, I am wondering if rwm should normalize them during the Mapping > process? Otherwise the Values will endup un-normalized in the cache > database, and I get incomplete results when requests are answered from the > cache. > > I have a patch ready for this but I was wondering if the normalization step > is left out by intention and wanted to ask before commiting my patch.

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 19:09, Howard Chu wrote: > It used to be a requirement that any data passing through back-ldap be > defined in the local server's schema. Recently that requirement was > relaxed. I don't see how you can normalize them safely, without knowing > their schema constraints. Yeah, there of course case were you can't normalize safely. Probably that feature should get a config-switch (defaulting to "no normalization"). But there are a lot of case where normalizing according to the constraints of the mapped attributetype should "just work". E.g. we have to proxy here for a directory that uses all kinds of strange attribute types instead of the well defined existing types (e.g. it uses an attributetype "fullname" instead of "displayname" or "cn") and we know that we can savely map them to one of the well defined attribute types. But we are a bit reluctant to pollute the schema of the server (which also host other databases) with those attribute types.

Ralf Haferkamp wrote: >> It used to be a requirement that any data passing through back-ldap be >> defined in the local server's schema. Recently that requirement was >> relaxed. I don't see how you can normalize them safely, without knowing >> their schema constraints. > > Yeah, there of course case were you can't normalize safely. Probably that > feature should get a config-switch (defaulting to "no normalization"). > But there are a lot of case where normalizing according to the > constraints of the mapped attributetype should "just work". > E.g. we have to proxy here for a directory that uses all kinds of strange > attribute types instead of the well defined existing types (e.g. it uses > an attributetype "fullname" instead of "displayname" or "cn") and we know > that we can savely map them to one of the well defined attribute types. > But we are a bit reluctant to pollute the schema of the server (which > also host other databases) with those attribute types. The design of slapo-rwm(5) is based on: do things as correct as possible, but don't be too clever. What you mean makes sense; however, in most cases when slapo-rwm(5) is needed there are chances data has some quirk. So I'd leave an option whether or not to require strict normalization (this option could be per instance, or even per mapping rule). In fact, slapo-rwm(5) needs to be tolerant about cases where nothing is known about the source data, and mapping is sort of a hack.