Re: How to check whether or not an object is a leaf?
Mark Smith <mcs@umich.edu> Tue, 12 December 1995 01:27 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18957; 11 Dec 95 20:27 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18953; 11 Dec 95 20:27 EST
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16833; 11 Dec 95 20:27 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.22625-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 17:48:39 +0000
Received: from terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.02903-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 17:47:45 +0000
Received: from terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu by terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.2/2.3) with SMTP id LAA26273; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:34:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199512111634.LAA26273@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Mark Smith <mcs@umich.edu>
To: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: How to check whether or not an object is a leaf?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 08 Dec 1995 15:34:57 +0100." <199512081434.PAA13631@durin.uio.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----- =_aaaaaaaaaa0"
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:34:33 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: mcs@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu
>From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> > To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk > > I have a user interface which I do not want to present search/list > options when it displays leaf objects (specifically, some organizations > and organizationalUnits). Now, quipuObjects are leaves if they are > neither quipuNonLeafObject nor externalNonLeafObject. But how do I > recognize a X.500(1993) leaf object? > > Or, if there is currently no way, *please* let's create a convention for > how to mark leaf objects, even if the mark is only advisory. Recently I wrote an Internet Draft that proposed using a couple of new object classes to solve this problem. It turns out that there is a proposed draft amendement to the X.500 standards that defines an operational attribute called "hasSubordinates" that seems to solve the problem. At the ASID meeting during last week's IETF meeting everyone agreed we should use the "hasSubordinates" approach, and my draft will be ignored. I have attached a message from Colin Robbins that he sent in response to the announcement about my original draft. -Mark
--- Begin Message ---I agree with this draft that being able to distinguish between leaf and non-leaf is required, but wonder if this is the best way of achieving the effect. Firstly, the proposed draft amendment to X.500 on "Minor extensions to support user requirements" already has a similar mechanism defined. It defines an operational attribute: hasSubordinates ::= { WITH SYNTAX BOOLEAN EQUALITY MATCHING RULE booleanMatch SINGLE VALUE TRUE NO USER MODIFICATION TRUE USAGE directoryOperation ID id-oa-hasSubordinates } This seems to overlap totally with the objectclass definition in the ID. However, the non-leaf object class in the ID does add some extra attributes to non-leafs to describe data about them. Instead of defining two new object classes, why not use the proposed standard mechanism (it needs no software modification, so we could use right now). Then define numberOfChildren and numberOfDescendants as new operational attributes to achieve the affect required in the ID? This approach would be more in line with the X.500(93) way of adding operation informations (using operational attributes), than using the X.500(88) mechanism of adding artificial objectClasses. Colin--- End Message ---
- How to check whether or not an object is a leaf? Hallvard B Furuseth
- Re: How to check whether or not an object is a le… Mark Smith