On Feb 14, 2012, at 5:03 AM, Emmanuel LÃcharny wrote:
Le 2/14/12 1:19 PM, Michael StrÃder a Ãcrit :
Emmanuel LÃcharny wrote:
In Apache Directory Studio and
the Java LDAP API, it's a bit more annoying, as we try to load the full schema
from the server to locally check that values are correct before sending them
back to the server. We have a mechanism to 'bypass' the missing syntaxes, of
course, but I think that from a completness POV, it would be better if
OpenLDAP add those missing syntaxes...
As a developer of a generic, schema-aware LDAPv3 client you should prepared to deal with incomplete/false subschema. Otherwise your client will joke very often.
We *are* ready to handle such schemas. M$ AD is most certainly the worst use case around. The question is more about OpenLDAP compliance
Compliance?
RFC 4512:
Clients SHOULD NOT assume that a published subschema is complete,
that the server supports all of the schema elements it publishes, or
that the server does not support an unpublished element.
: does those missing Syntaxes deserve an ITS or not.
Generally speaking, if it's missing, it's missing for a reason... generally that reason is the syntax is not implemented, or implemented to the degree needed to one to have a userApplications attribute using that syntax.
This can be viewed as a signal to the client application that listed attributes of that syntax cannot be stored/modified in the subtree of the subschema controls.