Re: Dumb(?) schema problem

["Keith T. Garner" <kgarner@kgarner.com>]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:02:11, Clayton Donley said:
> Hi Keith,

Hey Clayton!

> You didn't include a sample entry, but based on the DN starting with  
> "mail=", I'm assuming that the second entry you added was of type  
> "JammMailAccount".

Yep

> Note that your schema defines that objectclass as being auxiliary. An  
> entry needs to have at least one structural objectclass and that's why  
> you got the error you did. I'm assuming that JammMailAccount is a local  
> schema addition and that perhaps you intend the objectclass to be  
> structural instead. If not, you'll have to make the entry a member of  
> multiple classes, with one of them being structural.

Okay, I think I'm confused on the role of structural vs. auxiliary
then.  I was under the impression that structural objectclass items
were nodes while auxiliary were leafs.  It appears I was mistaken in
that assumption.

>From what you've said, then, I take it that structural vs. auxiliary
actually refers to the object and its properties, and not to if it has
children or not.  Or am I still not understanding?

Keith

-- 
   Keith T. Garner                                        kgarner@kgarner.com
   The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
 certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.  --Bertrand Russell