You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> on 2007/05/02 17:40:13 UTC
[ApacheDS][ACI] Substree specification should allow for refinements
Ersin, Pam,
I was talking to Pam who is working on a wizard for generating
subtreeSpecifications and
he told me that the refinement was not applicable to use with a
subtreeSpecification of a
ACI subentry. Is this the case? I thought a refinement was applicable to
all aspects that
are managed by the administrative model.
Alex
Re: [ApacheDS][ACI] Substree specification should allow for refinements
Posted by Ersin Er <er...@gmail.com>.
subtreeSpecifications apply too all X.500 based services if this is
the question.
On 5/3/07, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> This is not a question of the use of a full filter verses just an X.500
> refinement. I think
> Pierre and I both know that you changed the refinement to be a full LDAP
> filter. However
> Pierre had thought that the refinement filter did not apply to
> subtreeSpecifications on
> ACI subentries.
>
> Pierre can you chime in with what was your understanding so we can clarify
> everything?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
>
> On 5/2/07, Ersin Er <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > May be there is some confusion. subtreeSpecifications allow both
> > refinements and full LDAP filters (1.5+) as the value of
> > specificationFilter element.
> >
> > Any pb here?
> >
> > On 5/2/07, Alex Karasulu < akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Ersin, Pam,
> > >
> > > I was talking to Pam who is working on a wizard for generating
> > > subtreeSpecifications and
> > > he told me that the refinement was not applicable to use with a
> > > subtreeSpecification of a
> > > ACI subentry. Is this the case? I thought a refinement was applicable
> to
> > > all aspects that
> > > are managed by the administrative model.
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ersin
> >
>
>
--
Ersin
Re: [ApacheDS][ACI] Substree specification should allow for refinements
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
This is not a question of the use of a full filter verses just an
X.500refinement. I think
Pierre and I both know that you changed the refinement to be a full LDAP
filter. However
Pierre had thought that the refinement filter did not apply to
subtreeSpecifications on
ACI subentries.
Pierre can you chime in with what was your understanding so we can clarify
everything?
Thanks,
Alex
On 5/2/07, Ersin Er <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> May be there is some confusion. subtreeSpecifications allow both
> refinements and full LDAP filters (1.5+) as the value of
> specificationFilter element.
>
> Any pb here?
>
> On 5/2/07, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Ersin, Pam,
> >
> > I was talking to Pam who is working on a wizard for generating
> > subtreeSpecifications and
> > he told me that the refinement was not applicable to use with a
> > subtreeSpecification of a
> > ACI subentry. Is this the case? I thought a refinement was applicable
> to
> > all aspects that
> > are managed by the administrative model.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ersin
>
Re: [ApacheDS][ACI] Substree specification should allow for refinements
Posted by Ersin Er <er...@gmail.com>.
Hi
May be there is some confusion. subtreeSpecifications allow both
refinements and full LDAP filters (1.5+) as the value of
specificationFilter element.
Any pb here?
On 5/2/07, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ersin, Pam,
>
> I was talking to Pam who is working on a wizard for generating
> subtreeSpecifications and
> he told me that the refinement was not applicable to use with a
> subtreeSpecification of a
> ACI subentry. Is this the case? I thought a refinement was applicable to
> all aspects that
> are managed by the administrative model.
>
> Alex
>
>
--
Ersin