On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]> wrote: > Alias cycle detection > --------------------- > > There is an unsolved question about how we should detect Alias cycles. Right > now, we check for cycles *before* they are created. The alternative would be > to stop any search that could lead to an infinite loop.
That would slow down reads. The best is to stop this from happening with write operations: meaning doing the computation to detect and prevent the cycle then and there instead of exhausting the search process to deal with such wicked constructs. > A third - but unrealistic - solution would be to don't detect cycle, and > process the search until we reach the time or size limit (in other words, > it's up to the admin to avoid the creation of such cycle; Highly > dangerous…). Agreed - really dangerous. > The problem with the first approach is that we can't anymore pass the VSLDAP > tests. It's a major burden. Also most of the current servers support this > feature. Is there a VSLDAP test that allows for alias cycle creation? If so we should be able to bring this up with the Open Group. This is definitely a gray area in the protocol but it makes little sense to create alias cycles. Alias chaining on the other hand is a different story. So let me ask once again since I know little about the VSLDAP tests: do they allow alias chaining or alias loops? The two would be different. Alex
