IMO this example clearly shows that the {} approach is a hack limited to
certain use-cases (e.g. ACLs etc. in back-config).
Ciao, Michael.
Benin Technologies wrote:
> Hi Quanah,
>
> I just found an old post of yours, and I'd be interested to know if and how
> you solved that problem, because I ran into the same need.
>
> Thanks
> Ben
>
> * *To*: *openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org <mailto:openldap-devel%40OpenLDAP.org>*
> * *Subject*: *valsort & telephoneNumber*
> * *From*: *Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu
> <mailto:quanah%40stanford.edu>>*
> * Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:11:07 -0700
> * Content-disposition: inline
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> We would like to be able to use valsort to weight telephoneNumber values in
> OpenLDAP. However, modifications of that type get rejected by the SYNTAX
> validation for telephoneNumber because it contains {}'s. Is it reasonable to
> expect to be able to override the SYNTAX in this case? Should valsort be
> modified to do so? Basically, the desired behavior would be for the
> non-weighted part (i.e., the actual data) of the value to be validated via the
> SYNTAX rules, but the weight part at the beginning ignored.
>
> --Quanah
>
>
> --
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Principal Software Developer
> ITS/Shared Application Services
> Stanford University
> GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html <http://www.stanford.edu/%7Equanah/pgp.html>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature