Hi all,

I'm dealing with two really tough problems at the moment. Both center around handling search operations while factoring in schema. The following two issues concern defects in how ApacheDS conducts search:

http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIREVE-276
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIREVE-277

Emmanuel you had one of these slated for RC1 but I think both are pretty severe issues that impact ApacheDS' 2251 compliance in a major way. As a side discussion to this thread we should probably discussion whether or not we want both these issues resolved before RC1.

Here's a quick summary of each issue:

DIREVE-276:
----------------
A search filter with a superior objectClass (objectClass=person) does not match for entries of the subordinate objectClass (objectClass=organizationalPerson) if the entry does not contain all ancestors as values in the objectClass attribute. Right now it is legal for me to create an entry that is just an inetOrgPerson without including organizationalPerson, person and top within the objectClass attribute. I don't know if this is legal according to 2251 after several passes. My impression has been that this is valid since all superior objectClasses are implied. Can anyone confirm this? Anyway this is a major issue because it effects the semantics of search operations.

DIREVE-277:
----------------
This is a similar problem. A search filter with a superior attributeType will not match subtypes with the same value. So for example (name=Alex) will not match an entry in scope with attribute givenName with value of 'Alex'. Again this effects search semantics where we are clearly not compatible with 2251.

I have put together a page about these problems with detailed information about possible solutions and how the search algorithm works with each solution. This is a really tough problem that will effect ApacheDS' operation in a major way so any ideas or recommendations are more then usually welcome. Here's a link to the page:

http://docs.safehaus.org/display/APACHEDS/Search+Issues

Thanks,
Alex


Reply via email to