Howard Chu writes: >Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: >> (...) it would be friendly if >> OpenLDAP used the same attribute types for reading and writing schema, >> without an 'olc' prefix for writing. I presume there's a good reason it >> doesn't, and I don't know how hard that would be to change. > > We use a custom attributeType since ours has an ORDERED-VALUES flag in the > schema definition. The generic attributeType does not, and we obviously > wouldn't change the generic one to add that flag.
Not sure what you mean. OpenLDAP does extend the syntax of attributeTypes and ldapSyntaxes with some 'X-...' keywords, reserved for private experiments in rfc 4512. This: ldapsearch -x -b cn=subschema -s base + |perl -p00e 's/\n //g' |grep X- shows some non-OpenLDAP syntaxes, and OpenLDAP 'olc*' attribute types. There are a few uses of X- in etc/openldap/schema/, but only in already unportable/unsupported schemas (dyngroup and pmi). > (...) > The original LDAP designers obviously didn't understand schema to > begin with, let alone the issues of designing and maintaining > them. (Just ces and cis? Ridiculous...) Those were not supposed to be schema administration at all, since that was done in the X.500 server & library installation which the LDAP server was a gateway to. I remember that one of the attractions of the original LDAP for a sysadmin was getting rid of client-side schema files, or at least the requirement of keeping them updated. Then they probably proceeded with an excessive minimalist approach as a reaction to the pointlessly heavyweight Quipu (free X.500) server, and we are still living with the consequences:-( -- Hallvard
