[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: sasl-regexp proper behavior?

To: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: sasl-regexp proper behavior?
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:20:07 -0800
Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <2244149366.1080123406@cadabra.stanford.edu>
References: <2242670900.1080121927@cadabra.stanford.edu> <6.0.1.1.0.20040324100317.048e9cc8@127.0.0.1> <2244149366.1080123406@cadabra.stanford.edu>

At 10:16 AM 3/24/2004, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:


>--On Wednesday, March 24, 2004 10:09 AM -0800 "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> wrote:
>
>>The mapping is not necessarily one-to-one, it's can be many-to-one.
>>That is,
>>        sasl-regexp(a) -> X and sasl-regexp(b) -> X is fine, but
>>        sasl-regexp(c) -> X,Y is invalid.
>
>Yeah, (c) is what I am referring to, sorry I should have been more clear. ;)  That was the state I hit.

As (c) is invalid, an error should be returned.
If not, it's a bug.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: sasl-regexp proper behavior?
  - From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>

References:
- sasl-regexp proper behavior?
  - From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>
- Re: sasl-regexp proper behavior?
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: sasl-regexp proper behavior?
  - From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: sasl-regexp proper behavior?
Next by Date: Re: sasl-regexp proper behavior?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread