Subject: Re: derefInSearching (was Re: protocol-27 comments #3)

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 22:01:43 +0100

This was either lost or ignored - maybe deservedly so.  If nobody
replies, I'll consider the issue dead.  (As I note below, it still seems
to say dereferencing the base object is not recursive, but OTOH I don't
expect anyone to misunderstand.)

Hallvard B Furuseth writes:
>Jim Sermersheim writes:
>>>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]> 11/8/04 5:59:28 AM
>>>> derefInSearching: While searching, dereference any alias entry
>>>> subordinate to the base object which is also in the search
>>>> scope. The filter is applied to the dereferenced object(s). If
>>>> the search scope is wholeSubtree, the search continues in the
>>>> subtree of any dereferenced object. Aliases in that subtree are
>>>> also dereferenced.
>>>
>>> This seems to say that recursive dereferencing stops at alias entries
>>> that are not subordinate to the base object, and that onelevel
>>> searches do not recursively dereference aliases.
>>
>> How's this:
>>
>> While searching subordinates of the base object, dereference any alias
>> within the search scope (the act of dereferencing an alias includes
>> recursively dereferencing aliases which refer to aliases). Dereferenced
>> objects become the vertices of further search scopes where the Search
>> operation continues. If the search scope is wholeSubtree, the Search
>> continues in the subtree(s) of any dereferenced object. If the search
>> scope is singleLevel, the search is applied to any dereferenced objects,
>> and is not applied to their subordinates.
>
> I want to mix the old text with your new text, but I'm not sure how...
> Suggestions:
>
>   Move the part about aliasing being recursive directly under
>   derefAliases.  Move up 'Servers MUST detect looping...' as well.
>
>   It was perhaps unfortunate to have 'The filter is applied to the
>   dereferenced object(s).' _before_ saying that a subtree search
>   continues, but OTOH 'Aliases in that subtree are also dereferenced'
>   seems worth keeping.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:34:31 -0700

Lost. After updating with the proposed text, I didn't respond to your
suggestions below.
 
I agree with the first suggestion. All alias dereferencing should
dereference recursively, and all should employ loop detection.
 
I don't see text like "The filter is applied to the dereferenced
object(s).". I'm not sure what you're saying here.
 
Jim

>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]> 12/7/04 2:01:43 PM
>>>
This was either lost or ignored - maybe deservedly so. If nobody
replies, I'll consider the issue dead. (As I note below, it still
seems
to say dereferencing the base object is not recursive, but OTOH I
don't
expect anyone to misunderstand.)

Hallvard B Furuseth writes:
>Jim Sermersheim writes:
>>>>> Hallvard B Furuseth < [email-masked] > 11/8/04 5:59:28
AM

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:25:08 +0100

> object(s).". I'm not sure what you're saying here.

That text is quoted from protocol-27.  I'm not comfortable with either
the -27 or -28 text, but I have a hard time coming up with something
better.  Except that I liked the 'Aliases...' text from -27 (below).
Except again, the text is getting rather long...

> seems to say dereferencing the base object is not recursive, but OTOH
> I don't expect anyone to misunderstand.)
> (...)

-- 
Hallvard