[ 
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRLDAP-62?page=comments#action_12355736 ] 

Ersin Er commented on DIRLDAP-62:
---------------------------------

It's a fully flexible grammar now and ready for the release.

> [ACIITemParser] Position of terms in optional ASN.1 elements should not matter
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: DIRLDAP-62
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRLDAP-62
>      Project: Directory LDAP
>         Type: Improvement
>   Components: Common
>     Reporter: Alex Karasulu
>     Assignee: Ersin Er

>
> The position of optional elements is relavent within the ACIItemParser.  For 
> example for ProtectedItems the position of optional elements are relevant so 
> for example the following ACI whould bomb out:
>                 "{ " +
>                 "identificationTag \"searchAci\", " +
>                 "precedence 14, " +
>                 "authenticationLevel none, " +
>                 "itemOrUserFirst userFirst: { " +
>                 "userClasses { allUsers }, " +
>                 "userPermissions { { " +
>                 "protectedItems {allUserAttributeTypesAndValues, entry }, " +
>                 "grantsAndDenials { grantRead, grantReturnDN, grantBrowse } } 
> } } }" 
> This however would succeed:
>                 "{ " +
>                 "identificationTag \"searchAci\", " +
>                 "precedence 14, " +
>                 "authenticationLevel none, " +
>                 "itemOrUserFirst userFirst: { " +
>                 "userClasses { allUsers }, " +
>                 "userPermissions { { " +
>                 "protectedItems {entry, allUserAttributeTypesAndValues }, " +
>                 "grantsAndDenials { grantRead, grantReturnDN, grantBrowse } } 
> } } }" 
> The same holds for other constructs where a sequence of optional elements are 
> expected.  However this is a big problem.  The user specifying the ACI must 
> know what comes first, what comes second and so on in the ASN.1 description.  
> This is just too strict of a constraint to place on users and will degrade 
> the ease of use.  
> Really because we have names for each field order does not need to matter 
> anymore.  
> I marked this as an improvement as opposed to a bug because the ASN.1 to ABNF 
> translation was correct.  It just is not the best thing to do.  
>  

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Reply via email to