Re: >= (greater or equal) and <= (lower or equal) operators in

[Andreas <andreas@conectiva.com.br>]

On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 04:19:26PM +0200, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> I think the standard is missing it on purpose, because regular usage
> doesn't need anything but exact match.  Note that uidNumber to uid mapping

This is getting off-topic for the OL list, I'll stop here, I promise.

Why would it hurt to add this rule do uidnumber (besides breaking the schema)?
It's sort of a convention that, for example, UIDs < 500 and UIDs < 100 are 
reserved, at least in the Linux case.
It's a number, why is it forbidden to test for <=?

> only needs to use uidNumber as a key for exact filters.  If you want to
> use it for a different purpose, you should choose a different
> attributeType, or design your own.

That's what this current schema is forcing us to do. On the other hand, why
add another attribute with a number identifying an user if there is already
one and I only need to test for <= and >=? It's not like I'm using uidnumber
to store the social security number or something like it, far from it.

> Then just design your own, or propose a draft for standard emendation, but
> don't hijack others, or you'll run into interoperability problems, sooner
> or later.

A third option was to ask the author why the schema is the way it is. Perhaps
there is something I'm not seeing. But so far no answer.