svn commit: samba r16507 - in branches/SOC/mkhl: .

[mkhl at samba.org]

Author: mkhl
Date: 2006-06-24 23:34:44 +0000 (Sat, 24 Jun 2006)
New Revision: 16507

WebSVN: http://websvn.samba.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi?view=rev&root=samba&rev=16507

Log:

Add comments about problems I am imagining.

Martin

Modified:
   branches/SOC/mkhl/map.txt


Changeset:
Modified: branches/SOC/mkhl/map.txt
===================================================================
--- branches/SOC/mkhl/map.txt	2006-06-24 22:58:04 UTC (rev 16506)
+++ branches/SOC/mkhl/map.txt	2006-06-24 23:34:44 UTC (rev 16507)
@@ -96,7 +96,9 @@
 from mapping DNs back and forth all over the place.
 
 
-** Problems with these alternatives
+** Problems
+
+*** with these alternatives to "isMapped"
 The obvious problem is the use of a local/remote schema which might
 prevent our use of arbitrary internal attributes for mapped data.
 Another is mapping the directory structure in the remote backend,
@@ -104,7 +106,29 @@
 We would also need to be in samdb to get to use GUIDs for all I
 understand.
 
+*** with partitions
+When I use partitions (or really just different baseDNs) to separate
+the local and remote records, I *should* make sure to only modify DNs
+under the local baseDN.  What should one do in the case of a rename
+request where one of the old and new DN is under the local baseDN but
+the other isn't?
 
+*** with object existence
+The premises include that objects are always created locally, even if
+only to hold a "isMapped" attribute, but that they don't need to exist
+remotely.  The structure of the remote partition exactly mirrors that
+of the local partition though, i.e. an object has the same DN relative
+to the local as to the remote baseDN (except for mappings of the DN
+components, but those don't matter here).  This implies that *all*
+containers along this path must exist both locally *and* remotely,
+regardless of their attribute components.
+
+This means it *could* be possible to add a container (which isn't
+mapped for some reason) and later to create a record below that
+container that contains mapped data.  The request will fail due to the
+missing container, which, from the users point of view, *does* exist.
+
+
 ** Mappings
 
 *** Abstractly