Re: PCLS classes deprecated in PCELS

Ryan Moats wrote, On 09/12/03 11:27:
[snip}
> 
> Actually, that is a solution for all of the subclass cases: in PCELS call 
> tem pcime*, give them different OIDs from what's in PCLS and then everything
> is ok.
> 

I'll go further and suggest that every component of PCIMe which is
not exactly as defined in PCLS should be prefixed "pcime". If PCELS
simply avoids deprecating, renaming, or redefining anything from
PCLS, there can be no conflict with PCLS. And if everything new
which is introduced by PCELS is prefixed "pcime", there can be no
confusion about which is "core" and which is "extension".

Such a strategy will ultimately satisfy Joel's concerns, when he wrote:
 > My feeling is that concerns about PCELS should be in the context of
 > support for PCIMe,
and
 > if one can accurately map PCIMe to LDAP in a way that is compatible
 > with PCLS, then that would clearly seem desirable

PCELS should map PCIMe to LDAP in a way which is not INcompatible with
PCLS, in a way which does not break PCLS. I agree that "concerns about
PCELS should be in the context of support for PCIMe". I augment that
by saying that PCELS should not be concerned with recasting PCLS in
any way.

PCELS should focus on mapping PCIMe to LDAP. PCELS should avoid any
impact on PCLS.


-- 
--
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
# Larry Bartz
#
#  voice (317) 226-7060
#  FAX   (317) 226-6378
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|