Pete Rowley wrote: >A) they currently have no internet draft or RFC, and to my knowledge no >other server impliments them - only you can tell if this matters > > Yep - if you are looking for portability, stay away from this. >D) Entry DN's are not disguised, that is views does not try to make the >entry DN of the returned entries look like they physically exist in the view >hiearchy. It is possible that this might fool some clients that do DN >manipulation - most won't care however. > > I think this matters most for apps that modify the directory - esp those that try to create entries. If they try to modify it using the virtual view, things could get ugly. FWIW, chaining and/or referrals can run into similar issues - if you have one hierarchy and use referrals or chaining to split that across servers, you're generally ok, but if you use referrals/chaining to "remap" some branch/tree to some other structure or place in the tree (or another tree), you start getting into trouble. I see virtual views as a tool to support "bad" applications that have a heavy dependency on finding things under a specific hierarchy that is hard coded into the application. I call these "bad" applications because all you need are two that don't use the same hierarchy, and you are screwed (unless you have something like virtual views). It's a nice feature of FDS to support these apps, but personally, I'd stay away from writing apps that depend on special views. - Jeff
