|
>>>
"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 8/16/00 10:53:48 AM
>>> >>
>>I think a better alternative is to have the behavior be a) (which in my mind is simpler to implement), then allow use of the matched values control to produce the results of b). This way we are back to two separate controls that have non-overlapping specific functionality. If we agree to this proposal, I'll add appropriate text to the Interaction With Other Controls section. >
>I do prefer two separate controls as I believe it easier to
describe
>control combination semantics. >
>duplicate-entries: filter, dup, return
results
>matched-values: filter, trim, return results >
>duplicate-entries+matched-values: filter, dup, trim, return
results
>matched-values+duplicate-entries: filter, trim, dup, return results >
>other combinations?
I think the duplicate entries draft would (in the interaction with other
controls section) state something like "When this control is paired with the
matched values control, this control MUST be applied first..." then probably
expound using an example. The net effect being filter, dup, trim, return.
Jim
|