Ralf Haferkamp wrote:
How about a slightly different index representation. I was thinking if it makes sense to have an AttributeType for each by of index (e.g. dbEqIndex, dbSubIndex, dbPresIndex, ...) and as the values of those attribute just have the attributenames that should be indexed. E.g. if I have the following in slapd.confSince that is not how the internal data structures are organized, that would be hard. I'm not interested in doing that...
index cn,sn sub,eq index uidnumber eq,pres
it would result in the following back-config Attributes:
dbEqIndex: cn dbEqIndex: sn dbEqIndex: uidnumber dbSubIndex: cn dbSubIndex: sn dbPresIndex: uidnumber
or maybe:
dbEqIndex: cn $ sn $ uidnumber
dbSubIndex: cn $ sn
dbPresIndex: uidnumber
And maybe also put the index definitions in extra objects subordinate to the database objects (similar to the access control objects). But this is all a matter of personal taste I guess :-)Since I envision being able to edit a config LDIF file by hand, I dislike deeply nested objects because their DNs get too long to type. At the moment I'm reconsidering the olcAccess change; it doesn't seem to me to gain any functionality and it is simpler to just leave the attribute in the olcDatabase object. (Also, moving it back into the olcDatabase object means I can begin implementing the ACL Modify code without also having to implement Add/Delete first. As such, I'm probably going to revert to the original layout.)
-- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support