Re: Significance of name forms.
Michael Ströder wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
> There can only be one DIT Structure Rule for an entry, and a DIT
> Structure Rule can only reference one nameForm. For any given entry,
> only one
> nameForm may be in effect.
I've forgotten that the DIT structure rule can only reference a single
name form (although I've implemented it that way).
Hmm...still don't get it...reviewing my code...
Are you saying that different DIT structure rules each referencing
another name form which reference the same structural object class
cannot have the same SUP id? SUP is also multi-valued.
Correct.
Would this be possible?
sr2 --SUP--> sr1
sr3 --SUP--> sr1
sr1 --FORM--> nf1
sr2 --FORM--> nf2
sr3 --FORM--> nf3
nf1 --OC--> oc1
nf2 --OC--> oc23
nf3 --OC--> oc23
(with nf2 and nf3 having different RDN attrs sets)
Nope, not allowed.
The examples in X.521(1993) are pretty simple. But I remember having
seen more flexible declarations when doing interop testing with some
X.500 servers.
There is still flexibility here, since an X.500 server can define a
distinct subschema per subtree. But within a single subtree, or within
the scope of a single subschema, no.
In OpenLDAP we have stubs for supporting per-DB subschema, but would
need to do a bit more work to support arbitrary per-subtree subschema.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/