[Fedora-directory-users] Virtual DIT views vs hierarchical DIT

[Sam Tran]

On 6/24/05, Jeff Clowser <jclowser at unitedmessaging.com> wrote:
> Pete Rowley wrote:
> 
> >A) they currently have no internet draft or RFC, and to my knowledge no
> >other server impliments them - only you can tell if this matters
> >
> >
> Yep - if you are looking for portability, stay away from this.
> 
> >D) Entry DN's are not disguised, that is views does not try to make the
> >entry DN of the returned entries look like they physically exist in the view
> >hiearchy.  It is possible that this might fool some clients that do DN
> >manipulation - most won't care however.
> >
> >
> I think this matters most for apps that modify the directory - esp those
> that try to create entries.  If they try to modify it using the virtual
> view, things could get ugly.  FWIW, chaining and/or referrals can run
> into similar issues - if you have one hierarchy and use referrals or
> chaining to split that across servers, you're generally ok, but if you
> use referrals/chaining to "remap" some branch/tree to some other
> structure or place in the tree (or another tree), you start getting into
> trouble.
> 
> I see virtual views as a tool to support "bad" applications that have a
> heavy dependency on finding things under a specific hierarchy that is
> hard coded into the application.  I call these "bad" applications
> because all you need are two that don't use the same hierarchy, and you
> are screwed (unless you have something like virtual views).  It's a nice
> feature of FDS to support these apps, but personally, I'd stay away from
> writing apps that depend on special views.
> 

Jeff, Pete,

So you would definitely go with hierarchical DIT and not flat DIT with views?

Thanks for you comments.

Sam