[glue-wg] Question about Entity and its relationship withExtension

[Burke, S (Stephen)]

glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org 
> [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Millar said:
> At (more or less) the eventh hour, the Extension class was 
> altered to allow 
> multiple Extension objects, each with the same Key (but 
> presumably with 
> different Value attributes).  This was done by adding a LocalID and 
> repurposing Key (previously it had the same role as LocalID).

Not exactly: it was always intended that you could have multiple
Extensions with the same Key, and the object definition said that
explicitly. In xml you could (I assume) do that just by having multiple
copies of the object, but in LDAP and SQL you would have to invent an ID
to act as a unique key, so we decided to add that explicitly at the
schema level rather than leaving it to the implementation. But the
upshot is indeed that the relation should use the LocalID.

  Also, I think this is the one case where we definitely shouldn't allow
any freedom about the DIT structure, any Extensions should always be
directly under their parent object in the tree since they're logically
part of it.

Stephen
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.