[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/brows...235573
6 ]

Ersin Er commented on DIRLDAP-62:
---------------------------------

It's a fully flexible grammar now and ready for the release.

> [ACIITemParser] Position of terms in optional ASN.1 elements should no
t matter
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
>          Key: DIRLDAP-62
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRLDAP-62
>      Project: Directory LDAP
>         Type: Improvement
>   Components: Common
>     Reporter: Alex Karasulu
>     Assignee: Ersin Er

>
> The position of optional elements is relavent within the ACIItemParser.  F
or example for ProtectedItems the position of optional elements are relevant
 so for example the following ACI whould bomb out:
>                 "{ " +
>                 "identificationTag \"searchAci\", " +
>                 "precedence 14, " +
>                 "authenticationLevel none, " +
>                 "itemOrUserFirst userFirst: { " +
>                 "userClasses { allUsers }, " +
>                 "userPermissions { { " +
>                 "protectedItems {allUserAttributeTypesAndValues, entr
y }, " +
>                 "grantsAndDenials { grantRead, grantReturnDN, grantBr
owse } } } } }"
> This however would succeed:
>                 "{ " +
>                 "identificationTag \"searchAci\", " +
>                 "precedence 14, " +
>                 "authenticationLevel none, " +
>                 "itemOrUserFirst userFirst: { " +
>                 "userClasses { allUsers }, " +
>                 "userPermissions { { " +
>                 "protectedItems {entry, allUserAttributeTypesAndValue
s }, " +
>                 "grantsAndDenials { grantRead, grantReturnDN, grantBr
owse } } } } }"
> The same holds for other constructs where a sequence of optional elements are expe
cted.  However this is a big problem.  The user specifying the ACI must know what co
mes first, what comes second and so on in the ASN.1 description.  This is just too s
tri
ct of a constraint to place on users and will degrade the ease of use.
> Really because we have names for each field order does not need to matter 
anymore.
> I marked this as an improvement as opposed to a bug because the ASN.1 to A
BNF translation was correct.  It just is not the best thing to do.
>

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secur...nistrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]