[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: integerOrderingMatch

To: <atristan@acacia.ucr.edu>
Subject: Re: integerOrderingMatch
From: "Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:00:29 +0100 (CET)
Cc: <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <200212040027.gB40RbR27026@acacia.ucr.edu>
References: <200212040027.gB40RbR27026@acacia.ucr.edu>

> Since integerOrderingMatch isn't yet implemented in 2.0.x (according to
> schema_init.c), I thought I'd use caseExactOrderingMatch.  Is this the
> accepted ordering rule for integer data in 2.0.x?
> Best,
> Andrew

If you accept that 2 is greater than 1000 then yes.

-- 
Pierangelo Masarati
mailto:pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it

References:
- integerOrderingMatch
  - From: Andrew Tristan <atristan@acacia.ucr.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: ldap_bind: Invalid credentials
Next by Date: Re: slapdadd of exported Mozilla LDIF
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread