Re: [ldapext] [Fwd: LDAP C API gripes]

[simo <idra@samba.org>]

On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 19:48 +0100, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> Michael B Allen wrote:
> 
> 
> > As for retrieving the schema from the server at runtime, we did not do
> > that. Not just for performance reasons but more so because there is no
> > standard way to retrieve that information, it is awkward to do so or
> > you cannot do it at all (e.g. RootDSE attributes in AD have no schema
> > definitions).
> 
> 
> There __is__ a standard way, it's described in RFC4512 secton 4.4; the
> fact that some implementors don't comply with it, or do not populate
> values as indicated in the standard is a totally different business.

Last I checked AD supported subschemaSubentry, I don't think that
changed overnight. I can't say the same of the std openLdap installation
you find on many distributions out there :)

I am not sure to what attributes Michael refer, but I guess that even if
they are not defined they can be easily hard coded eventually.

however, I am not really keen into entering a debate about standard
implementations, I got some insight on what a client side validation API
might be good at. I am still unsure if the benefits are enough to
justify the added complexity but at least there is some substance there.

Anyone have any other example of the benefits a client side API can
bring?

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra@samba.org
http://samba.org


_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext