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 2009/08/30 00:19:02 UTC
[Shared] [Schema API] Shouldn't getName[s] really be getAliases[s]
Thoughts?
--
Alex Karasulu
My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org
Re: [Shared] [Schema API] Shouldn't getName[s] really be
getAliases[s]
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@gmail.com>.
Ahh ok you're right I did not consider the confusion with alias entries that
could result.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>wrote:
> Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>
>> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> >From RFC 4512:
>> The NAME field provides a set of short names (descriptors) that are
>> to be used as aliases for the OID.
>>
>> So there are at least three synonyms for the same thing.
>>
>> I'd use the terms defined in the ABNF and that is 'NAME'. Otherwise also
>> many other methods could be renamed (e.g. getMayAttributeTypes could be
>> named getAllowedAttributeTypes or getOptionalAttributeTypes).
>>
>>
> +1. I think that sticking to the RFC names eliminate the confusion. Aliases
> are something different in LDAP terminology. In this very case, the RFC call
> those NAME aliases, but the Description uses NAME, not ALIAS.
>
>> My 2 cents,
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> directory.apache.org
>
>
>
--
Alex Karasulu
My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org
Re: [Shared] [Schema API] Shouldn't getName[s] really be getAliases[s]
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>.
Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> >From RFC 4512:
> The NAME field provides a set of short names (descriptors) that are
> to be used as aliases for the OID.
>
> So there are at least three synonyms for the same thing.
>
> I'd use the terms defined in the ABNF and that is 'NAME'. Otherwise also
> many other methods could be renamed (e.g. getMayAttributeTypes could be
> named getAllowedAttributeTypes or getOptionalAttributeTypes).
>
+1. I think that sticking to the RFC names eliminate the confusion.
Aliases are something different in LDAP terminology. In this very case,
the RFC call those NAME aliases, but the Description uses NAME, not ALIAS.
> My 2 cents,
> Stefan
>
>
>
>
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [Shared] [Schema API] Shouldn't getName[s] really be getAliases[s]
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Thoughts?
>From RFC 4512:
The NAME field provides a set of short names (descriptors) that are
to be used as aliases for the OID.
So there are at least three synonyms for the same thing.
I'd use the terms defined in the ABNF and that is 'NAME'. Otherwise also
many other methods could be renamed (e.g. getMayAttributeTypes could be
named getAllowedAttributeTypes or getOptionalAttributeTypes).
My 2 cents,
Stefan