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

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

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:

>> Should it be possible to configure away language support?
>> I think I'd prefer to always have "lang-" supported.
> 
> While I generally prefer to have language tag/range support
> available, others may not.  

OK.

> RFC 2251:
>    Implementations MUST generate the <options> list sorted in
>    ascending order
> 
> (this requirement may be lifted by LDAPBIS)
> (...)
> The question is, are there clients which expect ascending order?
> Likely not, but...

Right.  This takes away any speed gain from using my bitflag options
instead of options stored as text, though.  So:

>> Well, chief, should I implement that, or keep my bit-flag user-defined
>> options, or both?
> 
> I'm thinking both would be generally useful...

In that case, I'll implement both the same way.  Either with two
configure options: 'tagOptionPrefixes' for ranges and 'attributeOption'
for plain options, or with one configure option (e.g. 'attributeOption')
where an option ending with a '-' means a range.  In both cases,
if you specify a range you lose 'lang-' unless you list it explicitly.

-- 
Hallvard