[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> I understand that unfortunately in slapadd this would require either >> to keep track of inserted DNs, or to issue quite a few be_entry_get(), >> possibly resulting in a sensible penalization. Perhaps it could be an >> option, relying on the fact that slapadd is basically intended to >> operate on "well-behaved" data? > > It had better, since slapadd accepts entries out of order. (It returns > failure at the end if some child has not received a parent.)
This could be treated specially by performing renames as soon as info becomes available. This pushes more and more towards making this either an option or a no-go for slapadd (i.e. rely on LDIF massaging to have things nice). Note that having data not compliant with the requirement of this ITS would by no means be a violation of LDAP nor cause any operational issue to slapd. It would just be a matter of having more well-behaved data if this does not impact too much operations (and it shouldn't for run-time adds, since we already lookup the parent when adding an entry). p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it --------------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------
