Eric Dorland ha scritto: > I disagree. Some LDAP implementations allow a plain username (Active > Directory) springs to mind. Plus, the fact that it's in format of a DN > doesn't make it any less a username. > Yes, just some. But all use DN (it's the protocol). So you're justifying a choice on the features of some implementations instead of the standard ones.
And all other programs I know are dealing with this (starting from evolution contacts) using "Bind DN". LAT is also supposed to be an admin tool, so for people supposed to know a little more than end users. The fact that some implementations can take an username and map it to a DN, cannot be confused; in LDAP a thing like "username in format of a DN" is a nonsense. LDAP knows only DN; some of them can be used to identify users; they contains an attribute for the username, but they aren't an username on a format of a DN. So if you want to stay on your choice because you think that is better from an usability point of view, just do it. But please use usability arguments, I'll probably still disagree, but at least they will not spread confusing ideas about LDAP. Simone -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
