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

Re: User-defined attribute options (Was: Suggestion: attribute;search)

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>> I like ;x-user-, but I don't agree that such names should be enforced.
> Well, I'm thinking that a descrFamily- (RFC3383) should be
> registered to handle this.  For example, "e-user-" or "e-u-".
> Could even be "user-", but likely this would require some
> form of technical specification to be written.
> Tag options in this family would be arbitrary (defined by the user
> without restriction).

If so, I suggest 'e-dist-' or 'dist-' as well - for the _distributor_ of
precompiled LDAP packages.  Though it might still be a little difficult
for some people to decide which name space to use.

> One could support the concept of range
> options could also be supports for the tag options.

If you are comparing with language ranges, I don't know what they are or
how they work, all I know is the code seems to support them.

> Code wise, they could implemented simply by changing ad.c:
>         (...)
> That is, these options are just like language options, they
> are both "tagging" options.  The code should treat them the
> same.

I suppose so, but isn't the language code rather slow?  I'm thinking
particularly of is_ad_sublang() and the code to build langs[] in
slap_bv2ad() in in ad.c.