[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Greater-equal/Less-than-equal comparisonsHi,
On Monday 13 October 2003 15:41, Frank Swasey wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 at 4:57pm, Peter Marschall wrote:
> > What I want to say is: numbers have an ordering, so attributes with a
> > number syntax should be given an ordering matching rule. Strings can have
> > substrings, so attributes with string syntaxes should be given a
> > substring rule. If the strings syntax is so that an ordering is
> > "natural", why not giving these strings an appropriate ordering rule
> > (e.g. aphabetical ordering).
> Pardon me... a little clarification please. Are you suggesting that
> slapd should automatically add those matching rules whether they are
> specified in the schema or not? Or, are you suggesting that the schema
> files should be modified to include those matching rules?
My suggestion was to extend the schema files appropriately [eventually in
combination with drafts for RFCs to be on the safe side concerning
IMHO automatic addition if not in the schema is bad because the admin/user do
not know exactly what they get. I.e. with automatic addition you may get an
ordering matching rule, but it is not defined in te standard place (the
schema) what rule it is exactly. So you need to guess.
[That's what other directory servers do, but I do not think this is a way
OpenLDAP should go]
> If you are suggesting the former, then I will strongly disagree with
> you. I have "string" type attributes in the private schema I have
> created which do not have substring matching rules precisely because I
> don't want them to. I have created my own version of uid which does not
> allow substring matching because of the fear that substring searches on
> uid are too easy a target to harvest email addresses.
This is a valid argument I did not think of.