[email protected] wrote: > >> It's not clear to me where the issue is. What is the "right" sequence the >> add of the new superior and the mordrdn should be transmitted? Should the >> provider operate differently, or should the consumer check all syncrepl >> messages and try to rebuild the final state, instead of giving up when the >> internal lookup for the newsuperior fails? Probably, a workaround could >> be to perform the modrdn by crating the new superior as a glue object, >> which eventually will be replaced by the actual add. > > I've quickly hacked things this way, and it seems to work fine. > > <ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/pierangelo-masarati-2010-04-17-sync-rename.1.patch> > > Please let me know if this approach is sound enough, I might have > overlooked some implications.
Patch looks good, solution makes sense. This is one of the reasons we would expect glue entries to be used. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
