Re: User-defined attribute options (Was: Suggestion: attribute;search)

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>> I don't quite follow this.  Do you mean that slapd.conf would
>> configure a list of prefixes (in this case just "e-geopolitical-")
>> which would work the same way as "lang-"?
> 
> Yes.  Basically, have a directive like:
> 
> tagOptionPrefixes "lang-" "e-geopolitical-" "e-user-"

Should it be possible to configure away language support?
I think I'd prefer to always have "lang-" supported.

Also, I'd remove the quotes in the option above.

> which would all be treated as language/range options are treated
> today.

Well, chief, should I implement that, or keep my bit-flag user-defined
options, or both?

> I note that in implementing either (or both) approaches, be
> sure that options are generating in ascending order in all
> attribute descriptions produced.

Why?  The server must compare them in sorted order internally, so that
;x;y = ;y;x, but I'd think it would be good enough to send an attribute
description the same way it was added.

> Also, these user-defined options should all be treated as "tagging"
> options (per draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-xx.txt) in terms of attribute
> hierarchy and other models aspects.

Heh.  It hadn't even occurred to me that other kinds of options might
exist, until I read that.

-- 
Hallvard