[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: User-defined attribute options (Was: Suggestion: attribute;search)
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>> Should it be possible to configure away language support?
>> I think I'd prefer to always have "lang-" supported.
> While I generally prefer to have language tag/range support
> available, others may not.
> RFC 2251:
> Implementations MUST generate the <options> list sorted in
> ascending order
> (this requirement may be lifted by LDAPBIS)
> The question is, are there clients which expect ascending order?
> Likely not, but...
Right. This takes away any speed gain from using my bitflag options
instead of options stored as text, though. So:
>> Well, chief, should I implement that, or keep my bit-flag user-defined
>> options, or both?
> I'm thinking both would be generally useful...
In that case, I'll implement both the same way. Either with two
configure options: 'tagOptionPrefixes' for ranges and 'attributeOption'
for plain options, or with one configure option (e.g. 'attributeOption')
where an option ending with a '-' means a range. In both cases,
if you specify a range you lose 'lang-' unless you list it explicitly.