On 16 juin 2011, at 13:14, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> On 6/16/11 1:00 PM, Kiran Ayyagari wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> so I slept on the problem, and here are a few thoughts I had this morning :
>>> - first, the alias handling can't be done in the doSimpleSearch() as I
>>> thought, because if we do so, alias dereferencing won't be handled when
>>> using the coreSession. It must be handled by the EntryFilteringCursor.
>>> Remains to see how to implement that there.
>>> - second, we may have some issue when an alias points to a non existing
>>> entry. What will the cursor.next() return in this case ? The alias exists,
>>> so the cursor.next() will move forward, to something that does not exist
>>> (this is a Pierre-Arnaud thought).
>> hmm, if the aliased entry doesn't exist the cursor shouldn't move forward
>
> Yes, but it's hard to know if the aliased entry exists *before* trying to
> fetch it...
Indeed, but I think it's mandatory in our case and if we want to maintain the
contract between the cursor.next() and cursor.get() methods.
Otherwise it could be broken in some rare situations like the one exposed above.
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
