[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Issue when injecting a new AttributeTypes in OpenLdap
On 4/13/11 11:40 AM, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
throwing all dynamic changes into a single cn=subschema subentry (or
99user.ldif as some other servers do) is messy. I prefer to keep things well
organized, with related schema elements all in their own entry. This makes
schema development and management a lot easier and understandable,
particularly when you're wondering what schema element came from where.
There are other ways one could specify which internal schema entry/tree
to use when that is not specified in the LDAP update operation -
e.g. cn=schema,cn=config& children could hold mappings from OID/schema
element name to the entry which should receive the update. Not sure if
that's any better. I wonder what X.500 servers do.
I have no idea about how X.500 handle that.
What comes to my mind now is that we (the OSS gang) could define a
common extension to help organize those added schema elements. That