Re: Supported RFC's and "features"
Smith, Matt wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 14:59 -0800, Howard Chu wrote:
...
> I suppose we need to update our published roadmap. I don't consider SSS or VLV
> to be particularly important or well-designed features. In fact OpenLDAP has
> an RFC-compliant implementation of SSS which is a pure no-op; this is
> perfectly compliant because the SSS spec is so utterly useless in real
> directories. Since VLV requires SSS, it is IMO equally useless or at least
> seriously flawed, and I have a strong aversion to implementing flawed designs.
> (Never mind all the other flawed designs we're forced to live with already...)
I see one valuable use for SSS - guaranteed search return order.
Regardless of the sort algorithm, knowing that searches will always
return entries in the same order allows for easy comparison, merge
sorts, or differentials with another list - as in necessary during the
reconciliation or join phases of provisioning.
Or is this a bad application of SSS?
I think someone else already replied that the client library already handles
sorting of results. There's nothing that depends on the server handling this
in the application you're talking about.
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/