[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: >= (greater or equal) and <= (lower or equal) operators in search filter
On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 07:59, Alexandre Garel wrote:
> > More to your question: Does the schema allow inequality filters on
> > those attributes?
> > --Quanah
> Ok, I finally looked in RFC 2252 and found that my attribute must have
> ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch. in their definition (which is not the
> case as I have standard definition).
> Declaring the filter 'undefined' if it does not have the ORDER
> directive is also part of the specification.
I've just grepped through my schema files, most of which came as
standard with OpenLDAP-2.2.13 plus one or two others. There is only one
attribute in all the schema files with this ORDERING directive:
attributetype ( 22.214.171.124 NAME 'dnQualifier'
DESC 'RFC2256: DN qualifier'
SYNTAX 126.96.36.199.4.1.14188.8.131.52.44 )
Is there no call for this sort of matching in filters then? Doesnt
anyone need to:
ldapsearch -x "(uidnumber>=1000)"
Is it considered breaking standard schema to add ORDERING rules into
> > --
> > Quanah Gibson-Mount
> > Principal Software Developer
> > ITSS/Shared Services
> > Stanford University
> > GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html
iTSS Wallingford 01491 692445