You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by "Emmanuel Lecharny (JIRA)" <di...@incubator.apache.org> on 2005/10/19 04:04:45 UTC
[jira] Commented: (DIRLDAP-62) [ACIITemParser] Position of terms in optional ASN.1 elements should not matter
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRLDAP-62?page=comments#action_12332432 ]
Emmanuel Lecharny commented on DIRLDAP-62:
------------------------------------------
being able to enter those names in any order is not a big deal. Further more, it will simplify the grammar.
The only tricky thing to control is that a name is used only once. Again, not a big deal, has we can use a HashMap to store each name already used.
In the antlr grammar, we have 12 rules than can be concatenated in only two rules.
So let's do it !
> [ACIITemParser] Position of terms in optional ASN.1 elements should not matter
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DIRLDAP-62
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRLDAP-62
> Project: Directory LDAP
> Type: Improvement
> Components: Common
> Reporter: Alex Karasulu
> Assignee: Ersin Er
>
> The position of optional elements is relavent within the ACIItemParser. For example for ProtectedItems the position of optional elements are relevant so for example the following ACI whould bomb out:
> "{ " +
> "identificationTag \"searchAci\", " +
> "precedence 14, " +
> "authenticationLevel none, " +
> "itemOrUserFirst userFirst: { " +
> "userClasses { allUsers }, " +
> "userPermissions { { " +
> "protectedItems {allUserAttributeTypesAndValues, entry }, " +
> "grantsAndDenials { grantRead, grantReturnDN, grantBrowse } } } } }"
> This however would succeed:
> "{ " +
> "identificationTag \"searchAci\", " +
> "precedence 14, " +
> "authenticationLevel none, " +
> "itemOrUserFirst userFirst: { " +
> "userClasses { allUsers }, " +
> "userPermissions { { " +
> "protectedItems {entry, allUserAttributeTypesAndValues }, " +
> "grantsAndDenials { grantRead, grantReturnDN, grantBrowse } } } } }"
> The same holds for other constructs where a sequence of optional elements are expected. However this is a big problem. The user specifying the ACI must know what comes first, what comes second and so on in the ASN.1 description. This is just too strict of a constraint to place on users and will degrade the ease of use.
> Really because we have names for each field order does not need to matter anymore.
> I marked this as an improvement as opposed to a bug because the ASN.1 to ABNF translation was correct. It just is not the best thing to do.
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira