On 6/24/05, Jeff Clowser <jclowser at unitedmessaging.com> wrote: > 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, Pete, So you would definitely go with hierarchical DIT and not flat DIT with views? Thanks for you comments. Sam
