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
--
Fedora-directory-users mailing list
Fedora-directory-users@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
