Sounds like a plan. I want to drive forward with this as well as the specification process. I have some ideas on these topics namely the search issues.
Alex On 9/19/07, Ersin Er <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 9/20/07, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ersin, > > > > I was wondering what the plan is for completing all the trigger hooks. > > While looking into > > implementing a custom authenticator for delegating authentication to > > external LDAP servers > > (namely AD) it occurred to me that I could use a trigger and stored > > procedure instead. I > > think Emmanuel had this idea a little while ago. > > > Basically I consider triggers as a user-side tool. A trigger is a > replacement for code developed at client side to keep things in sync. If we > want to use triggers for server extensions we need to go beyond the > standardization effort. I don't think that we can propose as standard those > all constructs needed by our server extension process. > > I can implement a SP and fire it via an INSTEAD OF trigger on BIND rather > > implementing a > > custom authenticator. However we don't have INSTEAD OF triggers nor do > > we have a hook > > on the BIND operation. You planning on completing this stuff soon or is > > this something that > > you recommend I start looking into? > > > As we've discussed before there are some problems with execution semantics > of INSTEAD OF triggers. It especially applies to the search operation. If > there are multiple triggers defined on an entry for a search operation, > which of them will be executed? This decision is important because search > operation returns a response to the client and this will be provided by the > stored procedure invoked by the trigger. > > Alex > > > > I can make a list of problems I have seen about implementing those hooks > so we can discuss on them. WDYT? > > -- > Ersin Er > http://www.ersin-er.name
