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

Re: (ITS#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es)

>----- Original Message ----
>From: Pierangelo Masarati <ando@sys-net.it>
>To: vargok@yahoo.com
>Cc: openldap-its@openldap.org
>Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:52:04 PM
>Subject: Re: (ITS#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es)
>> These address the use of Binary-valued attributes (#3113, #3386):
>> For example, inetOrgPerson.userCertificate is usually transferred with the
>> ";binary" directive.  ";binary" is not handled by OpenLDAP/Back-SQL.
>Well, the solution you propose is not correct, since you are altering
>schema data, which is supposed to be read-only.  In any case, the point is:

Yeah; I think the actual submission found the ";binary" and reset the
reference to it, not actually doing anything to it.

>- if we decide that back-sql should ignore tags, then the solution
>consists in using the canonical name of the underlying AttributeType
>when looking up data;
>- however, this would destroy the possibility to use different storages
>for differently encoded data; for example, a column for "cn;lang-en" and
>a column for "cn;lang-jp".  I don't know how many users would prefer one
>solution over another, but in any case either we find a solution that
>preserves both capabilities or we choose one.  I'd vote in favor of
>ignoring ";binary" since it's obsolete and related to transport only,
>but in favor of honoring language tags.

Sounds great to me.  I just want support for ";binary" both on storage and
retrieval to be supported.  I'll accept that it's obsolete -- I'll also put
forth that a lot of things still use it (e.g. Lotus Domino v6).

>> There remains an issue with selecting attributes using, e.g.,
>> "userCertificate;binary" -- nothing is returned.  Someone with a better
>> understanding of the attribute-processing method would be much more effective in
>> terms of finding the correct place to remove the ";binary" from the
>> "attribute-name."  (i.e. "userCertificate;binary" is NOT the attribute-name;
>> "userCertificate" is the attribute-name, ";binary" is a transport directive (see
>> #3113).
>In fact, "userCertificate;binary" is the attribute description.  The
>attribute name is in ad_type->sat_cname.

And, in fact, none of what I did appears to have been sufficient.  I'm
still looking at why selecting "userCertificate;binary" as part of an ldapsearch attribute-list doesn't pull the data.  "userCertificate" does.  The issue appears
to be related to the ad_inlist verification on the search-supplied attribute --
"userCertificate;binary" doesn't resolve.
If you know where I can look to figure this out, that would help. I've been
through some areas and not found exactly where just yet.

Thanks for your assistance.
Kevin Vargo

The fish are biting. 
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.