Le 6 aoÃt 2011 16:30, "Michael StrÃder" <email@example.com> a ÃcritÂ:
> Erwann ABALEA wrote:
> > Le 6 aoÃt 2011 15:49, "Michael StrÃder" <firstname.lastname@example.org
> > <mailto:email@example.com>> a Ãcrit :
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com> wrote:
> >> > The cleanest approach is to modify your OU entries:
> >> >
> >> > objectClass: top
> >> > objectClass: organizationalUnit
> >> > objectClass: extensibleObject
> >> >
> >> > Now, all attributes which are defined in any schema are allowed :-) .
> >> That's what I consider bad advice and definitely not the cleanest approach.
> > This is equivalent to your solutions 1 and 2, described 3 days ago.
> No, it's not since 'extensibleObject' is a special auxiliary object class
> actually circumventing schema checking. I proposed to use a custom auxiliary
> object class specifically allowing the needed attributes.
Sorry, my fault, I didn't know this class. If it disables schema checking, then you're right, it's bad.