[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: User-defined attribute options (Was: Suggestion: attribute;search)
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>> I don't quite follow this. Do you mean that slapd.conf would
>> configure a list of prefixes (in this case just "e-geopolitical-")
>> which would work the same way as "lang-"?
> Yes. Basically, have a directive like:
> tagOptionPrefixes "lang-" "e-geopolitical-" "e-user-"
Should it be possible to configure away language support?
I think I'd prefer to always have "lang-" supported.
Also, I'd remove the quotes in the option above.
> which would all be treated as language/range options are treated
Well, chief, should I implement that, or keep my bit-flag user-defined
options, or both?
> I note that in implementing either (or both) approaches, be
> sure that options are generating in ascending order in all
> attribute descriptions produced.
Why? The server must compare them in sorted order internally, so that
;x;y = ;y;x, but I'd think it would be good enough to send an attribute
description the same way it was added.
> Also, these user-defined options should all be treated as "tagging"
> options (per draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-xx.txt) in terms of attribute
> hierarchy and other models aspects.
Heh. It hadn't even occurred to me that other kinds of options might
exist, until I read that.