Dear all
As in manual: Integrity is maintained by updating database records which contain the named attributes to match the results of a modrdn or delete operation.
Is it feasible and possible the future version also maintain referential integrity by "updating database records which contain the named attributes to match /and subtree match/ the results of a modrdn or delete operation."
Which means:
entry: dn: cn=Wang,ou=sales,o=example.com ...
dn: o=Su,ou=sales,o=example.com manager: cn=Wang,ou=sales,o=example.com
now: $ ldapmodrdn ou=sales,o=example.com ou=sales,ou=marketing,o=example.com
Currently the referential integrity is not maintained in such case, value of 'manager' attribute of "o=Su,ou=sales,o=example.com" is not changed, resulting to an invalid manager attribute value. Would it be interesting in such case to have updated 'manager' attribute too? e.g. as a feature request.
Thanks. Might be stupid idea but would love to know why it's stupid (probably "non-leaf node should be changed as less as possible or not at all, re-construct your LDAP structure.")
Zhang Weiwu wrote:
As in manual: Integrity is maintained by updating database records which contain the named attributes to match the results of a modrdn or delete operation.
Is it feasible and possible the future version also maintain referential integrity by "updating database records which contain the named attributes to match /and subtree match/ the results of a modrdn or delete operation."
Which means:
entry: dn: cn=Wang,ou=sales,o=example.com ...
dn: o=Su,ou=sales,o=example.com manager: cn=Wang,ou=sales,o=example.com
now: $ ldapmodrdn ou=sales,o=example.com ou=sales,ou=marketing,o=example.com
Currently the referential integrity is not maintained in such case, value of 'manager' attribute of "o=Su,ou=sales,o=example.com" is not changed, resulting to an invalid manager attribute value.
I think the reason is that when slapo-refint(5) was designed, no backend supported subtree renaming.
Would it be interesting in such case to have updated 'manager' attribute too? e.g. as a feature request.
Yes it would. I suggest you file an ITS for this "feature request" (actually, right now it sounds more like a bug fix for users of slapd-hdb(5) and slapo-refint(5)).
Thanks. Might be stupid idea but would love to know why it's stupid (probably "non-leaf node should be changed as less as possible or not at all, re-construct your LDAP structure.")
That's another business.
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 ---------------------------------------
Zhang Weiwu wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 08:21 +0200, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
Yes it would. I suggest you file an ITS for this "feature request" (actually, right now it sounds more like a bug fix for users of slapd-hdb(5) and slapo-refint(5)).
Thanks. ITS#5097 is filed.
This is now fixed in HEAD; please test. 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 ---------------------------------------
openldap-software@openldap.org