What is the difference between having a DN or an ID in objects? Are objects going to be moved around so their DN will change but you want to preserve that relationship? When implementing relationships you need to know exactly where to look. Although our IDs are specified as "A global Unique ID", LDAP has no way to assure this as it uses the DN as its key. Moreover, when searching, as you said, it uses the DN, so I don't see any advantages of using the ID instead of the DN. So maybe I am skipping something in the middle. Maybe you can explain me why you think this. :) On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Burke, S (Stephen) < stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Laurence Field said: I would prefer to use the UniqueID rather than the DN. Can you provide a concrete example.
I more than prefer, I think having references to DNs in the objects is crazy! The only way we should refer to objects is via the ID. Although LDAP uses DNs as a key to find objects glue itself doesn't, the object ID is the key, and DNs should never be used anywhere.
Unfortunately I don't really have a chance to comment in detail while I'm at CHEP, and I'm staying in Prague for a few days extra. Probably that means that you should implement something and then I'll comment, but we should be prepared to change the approach if necessary.
Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
-- David Horat Software Engineer specialized in Grid and Web technologies IT Department – Grid Deployment Group CERN – European Organization for Nuclear Research » Where the web was born Phone +41 22 76 77996 http://davidhorat.com/ http://cern.ch/horat http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidhorat