(forgot the copy to the list) I wrote: >>>>> Michael Ströder<[email protected]> schrieb am 22.11.2013 um 20:24 in >> Nachricht <[email protected]>: >>> Christian Kratzer wrote: >>>> very interesting point. >>>> >>>> I have a customer with an enterprise application that insists on having an >>>> explicit objectClass: top on all entries. >>>> >>>> Their developers argue that the rfcs mandate an explicit objectClass: top >> on >>>> all entries. I argue that the wording in the respective rfcs is not exact >>>> enough. Having an objectClass that inherits from top should be enough from >> >>> my >>>> point of view. >>>> >>>> I am currently travelling and cannot lookup the rfc. >>> >>> I vaguely remember having researched this as well many years ago. Don't >>> remember the details but I came up with the following recommendations: >>> >>> For client developers: Don't require object class 'top'. >>> >>> For LDAP admins: Add object class 'top' to all entries. >>> >>> Ciao, Michael. >> >> I wonder: If you query an object, you get a set of attributes. Whether you >> added "top" or not, the attributes are the same (except the "objectClass: >> top"). And ussually the attributes are not associated with a specific >> objectlass in the search result. >> >> If you try to "structure" the search results, then with "top", you'll find
> the >> objectClass attribute at the "top" abstract class, while without "top" > you'll >> find it in the structural object class. >> >> I haven't found a document that describes "multiple inheritance" as it > happens >> with "top" (every objectclass inherits from top, but still the attributes > occur >> only once in the type hierarchy). >> >> Regards, >> Ulrich
