[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
Howard Chu writes:
> Hm... Where were you when we were originally discussing these changes?
Absent. I did look at it though, but I didn't realize how far the
changes went. See below.
> HEAD has been working this way for over a year, and it's clearly more
> correct in its behavior now than it was before.
True, the old way was quite broken as that thread shows.
>> If anything, the LDIF RFC could be revised instead. This format has
>> been supported since umich ldap (before the LDIF RFC was written).
> That doesn't mean it has any relevance today; there's plenty of stuff
> UMich did that was long since deprecated.
True, but this was not deprecated that I know of. So:
> It may be OK to revert this single aspect of the change. If you do so,
> just make sure that those other corner cases mentioned in the -devel
> thread are still handled correctly.
Changing the -devel thread's example a bit, I'd say 2.3 accepted one
dangerous bug, one unambigious but possibly misleading format (a modify
record both with and witout "add/delete/replace: attribute" lines), and
one safe format (changetype: modify but no add/delete/replace"):
# bug: implicit "add: sn". Since the "-" was optional, one might even
# expect the new attribute type to revert to the default "replace:".
# Safe after the "-" but possibly confusing - implicit "replace:
# description" and "replace: telephoneNumber"
# OK: implicit "replace:" for everything
Snipping a bit from the -devel thread:
Howard Chu wrote:
> (Did I mention that I've always thought the mod-spec definition was
> garbage? The format I use for the logschema has none of these problems
> or inefficiences...)
As far as I can tell Logschema doesn't support full LDIF modify though.
reqMod is unordered, so one cannot make two modifications to the same
attribute. E.g. "delete: foo" followed by "replace: foo".
OTOH it would be an LDIF-compatible extension to make the attribute
description in "attribute: value" optional after "add/replace/delete:
attribute". Then one could omit the terminating "-" too.
Maybe it's time to take this to the ldapext list and hear what others