[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: virtual view strategies: replying differently to different clients
- To: Pierangelo Masarati <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: virtual view strategies: replying differently to different clients
- From: Guillaume Rousse <Guillaume.Rousse@inria.fr>
- Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:33:39 +0200
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Aaron Richton <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <582407.20021216999527677.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <582407.20021216999527677.JavaMail.email@example.com>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 126.96.36.199 (X11/20080808)
Pierangelo Masarati a Ãcrit :
Actually, subordinate is not really needed, just declaring the inner
database before the other is OK:
----- "Aaron Richton" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
First, using a distinct database doesn't allow to provide a virtual
from a branch in my original database to another branch in the same
database. Meaning, I can't have ou=telephony,dc=myprefix a virtual
of ou=users,dc=myprefix, I need to use a distinct prefix.
Have you tried declaring the ou=telephony,dc=myprefix back-relay
subordinate to dc=myprefix back-$END?
I was about to reply the same, but you anticipated me :)
I've tried the above, and it works as expected as soon as the "relay" statement is omitted. In fact, it requires the superior database to already exist. Probably, that test should either be relaxed or moved to db_open().
Making the first one subordinate to the second has the unwanted
side-effect of having all requests for user starting from top-level
suffix (example: ldapvi --user '(uid=foo)' now return two users instead
of one, so I'd likely avoid it.
Moyens Informatiques - INRIA Futurs
Tel: 01 69 35 69 62