Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > AFAIR, those grammars are also different because they create different > kind of object (to be double checked). Anyway, this is not a reason to > not merge those two grammars.
Yes, you are right. In a first step lets convert between these different objects, perhapse later we could remove one of these classes. > I would like to add some more features, like accepting a name for > syntaxes. Nothing is less painfull than to have an OID to express that > an AttributeType is a IA5String ! Do you mean just to accept the name field in syntax descriptions like ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 DESC 'IA5 String' ) ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 NAME 'IA5String' DESC 'IA5 String' ) Or also to accept this name in attribute types like ( ... NAME 'mail' ... SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 ) ( ... NAME 'mail' ... SYNTAX IA5String ) In the latter case, should the schema parser take care of mapping this name to an OID? I guess this is not possible because the parser can't access the schema registry, so it must be done inside the server. >> 3rd) >> Add an "isStrict" flag to schema.g which is true by default. > > IMHO, the grammar parser should not be strict by default, but relaxed. > If you set it to strict, many users will ask 'why is my schema not > correct ?' Ack. Regards, Stefan
