Re: syncrepl and attribute order

[Evgeniy Kosov <evgeniy@kosov.su>]

On 18.07.2012 15:49, Howard Chu wrote:
> Evgeniy Kosov wrote:
> > On 18.07.2012 13:31, Howard Chu wrote:
> > > > Does attribute order matter? Is it specified somehow (sorted by
> > > > modification time?)?
> > >
> > > No, attribute order in LDAP is unspecified.
> >
> > Then why does syncrepl try to reorder attributes in a backend?
>
> Syncrepl aims to make an entry on the consumer identical to the entry on the
> provider.

The problem is that's impossible unless both backends (provider and 
consumer) do modifications to the object the same way (e.g. move 
modified attribute to the end of list). Is that (moving to the end) 
specified somewhere?

Btw, aren't the two objects below identical in terms of LDAP/LDIF?

dn: cn=johndoe,ou=users,o=example
cn: johndoe
sn: Doe
givenName: John


dn: cn=johndoe,ou=users,o=example
cn: johndoe
givenName: John
sn: Doe


> > > > Should this issue be reported as bug?
> > >
> > > No. It is clearly working as designed.
>
> > If attribute order is unspecified, so apparently it mostly depends on
> > the backend implementation. On the other hand syncrepl makes an
> > assumption regarding (unspecified) attribute order and the result (list
> > of ops sent to a backend) depends on whether that assumption was right
> > or not.
>
> Yes. It is assumed that, while attribute order is unspecified, once an order
> has been set it will be preserved.

> > In the end, all these order-dependent modifications affect my
> > module, as I'm trying to hook on certain DIT changes and trigger
> > corresponding logic.
> >
> > Could your "working as designed" be interpreted as "That didn't matter
> > so far"? Given my use case, could this design be thought over? If not,
> > what would be you recommendations in my case?
>
> Use delta-syncrepl instead.

I'll have a closer look at it. Thank you.

--
Regards,
Evgeniy Kosov