Re: Models: Aux class deletion

["Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com>]

Yeah, I mis-read Models to say that one could add an aux class if it = is a superclass of an allowed aux class.

So in the case where Aux1 gets implicitly added, if it is not = explicitly removed along with Aux2, the server will return objectClassViola= tion.

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga"

= 3/8/04 4:32:42 PM >>> At 02:56 PM 3/8/2004, Jim Sermersheim = wrote: >From reading the Models draft, we can't find how to handle = this scenario: > >1) Aux2 subclasses Aux1 >2) Aux2 and = Aux1 are added to the objectClass attribute of an entry >3) Aux2 is = allowed by the DIT content rule for the structural object class of the = entry, so the add (or modify) succeeds >4) Aux2 is removed from the = entry's objecClass As servers are required to ensure the result of = the modification still conforms to the schema and the schema doesn't = allow aux1 to allowed (except as a superclass of a allowed subclass), the operation must fail. >Should Aux1 remain in the objectClass = attribute when Aux2 is removed? Well, given both were explicitly = added, I'd say that the requesting only aux2 to be removed is an error. = It clearly leaves a non-allowed auxiliary in place. Now, if Aux1 = was only implicitly added, one could argue that it was implicitly = deleted as well. However, it seems that view wasn't supported by = consensus. Hence, auxiliary classes must be explicitly removed even = when their addition was implicit. Kurt