Re: The LDAP 'list' debate

[Jean-Paul Le Guigner <[e-mail]>]

|    >Another possible solution (and perhaps somebody who has read the spec
|    >closer than me can comment if it is possible) is for the LDAP server to
|    >have this "implementation" knowledge built in, and map the LDAP search
|    >onto list and reads for the relevant part of the DIT (you can work out
|    >which parts of the DIT are affected algorithmicaly).
|    
|    If everyone becomes convinced that LDAP's lack of list realy is a problem
,
|    I vote for this solution.  We should push for things that make it easier
|    for people to write X.500 clients.  I would much rather see extra effort
|    put into 
|    into the LDAP server than all the clients (of course I don't have to writ
e
|    the LDAP server ;-) ).
|    
|    Isn't the point of LDAP to make it easier to write X.500 clients?
|    
|    Russ
|    
|    
|    

You have got the point here.

LDAP servers will not have to be written for all "kind of strange" big/medium/small
systems, but DUAs will have to be.
This mean that it is better to put efforts on writting (one ?) more complex LDAP
server, and have a good time writting DUAs afterwards, than the other way around.

More to it, LDAP servers will  written by experts (well, people knowing something)
byt a simple programmer  should be able to write  a DUA.

So I certainly vote for:
                           LDAP having the LIST operation


And Actually, is there really a good reason not to have LIST in LDAP?
I have seen really such a convincing one.



Jean-Paul Le Guigner - CRU [CRI Univ. Rennes I] 99 84 71 50