[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Antw: Re: [Q] amendments to schemes existent
- To: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
- Subject: Re: Antw: Re: [Q] amendments to schemes existent
- From: "Zeus Panchenko" <zeus@ibs.dn.ua>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:02:55 +0300
- Cc: andrew.findlay@skills-1st.co.uk, openldap-technical@openldap.org
- Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAFVBMVEWxsbGdnZ3U1NQTExN cXFzx8fG/v7+f8hyWAAACXUlEQVQ4jUWSwXYiIRBFi4yyhtjtWpmRdTL0ZC3TJOukDa6Rc+T/P2F eFepwtFvr8upVFVDua8mLWw6La4VIKTuMdAPOebdU55sQs3n/D1xFFPFGVGh4AHKttr5K0bS6g7N ZCge7qpVLB+f1Z2WAj2OKXwIWt/bXpdXSiu8KXbviWkHxF5td9+lg2e3xlI2SCvatK8YLfHyh9lw 15yrad8Va5eXg4Llr7QmAaC+dL9sDt9iad/DX3OKvLMBf+dm0A0QuMrTvYIevSik1IaSVvgjIHt5 lSCG2ynNRpEcBZ8cgDWk+Ns99qzsYYV3MZoppWzGtYlTO9+meG6m/g92iNO9LfQB2JZsMpoJs7QG ku2KtabRK0bZRwDLyBDvwlxTm6ZlP7qyOqLcfqtLexpDSB4M0H3I/PQy1emvjjzgK+A0LmMKl6Lq zlqzh0VGAw440F6MJd8cY0nI7wiF/fVIBGY7UNCAXy6DmfYGCLLI0wtDbVcDUMqtJLmAhLqODQAe riERAxXJ1/QYGpa0ymqyytpKC19MNXHjvFmEsfcHIrncFR4xdbYWgmfEGLCcZokpGbGj1egMR+6M 1BkNX1pDdhPcOXpAnAeLQUwQLYepgQoZVNGS61yaE8CYA7gYAcWKzwGstACY2HTFvvOwk4FXAG/a mKHni/EcA/GkOk7I0IK7UMIf3+SahU8/FJdiE7KcuWdM3MFocUDEEIX9LfJoo4xV5tnNKc3jJuSs SZWgnnhepgU1zN4Hii18yW4RwDX52CXUtk0Hqz6cHOIUkWaX8fDcB+J7y1y2xDHwjv/8Buu8Ekz6 7tXQAAAAASUVORK5CYII=
- In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:52:01 +0200 <59E859A1020000A100028734@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
- Organization: I.B.S. LLC
- References: <472170f5b7db5e94057fb0db506e116e@ibs.dn.ua> <20171018093451.GA10619@slab.skills-1st.co.uk> <20171018093451.GA10619@slab.skills-1st.co.uk> <20171019082829.46052@relay.xx> <59E859A1020000A100028734@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> But you are basically changing the semantics of attribute authorizedService:
> Before "*" was literal, after it is magic (substring match).
>
> The discussion on which variant is more useful is a different issue ;-)
for *my* flow, the variant of original schema is unusable since I have
pleny of values and to hardcode all of them for all available searches
is not good idea, to my mind ...
if to return to the starting question:
is there other way to get originally SUBSTR-less attributes to be
matchable by substring, except hacking the scheme?
--
Zeus V. Panchenko jid:zeus@im.ibs.dn.ua
IT Dpt., I.B.S. LLC GMT+2 (EET)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature