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

Re: Run-time registered controls

To: ando@sys-net.it
Subject: Re: Run-time registered controls
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:56:36 -0800
Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <47939.131.175.154.56.1106670944.squirrel@131.175.154.56>
References: <47735.131.175.154.56.1106651867.squirrel@131.175.154.56> <6.2.0.14.0.20050125072810.05cfeeb8@mail.openldap.org> <47939.131.175.154.56.1106670944.squirrel@131.175.154.56>

At 08:35 AM 1/25/2005, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
>>>To keep things simple,
>>>Of course, I might be missing a much cleaner and simpler solution, or
>>>overlooking other side effects...
>>
>> I guess I don't see what functionality we're missing.
>
>See above.  We didn't notice this earlier because the run-time registered
>controls either required the control to be non critical (ppolicy) or
>required/allowed it to be non-critical (syncrepl).

Right, test019 would have erroneously failed before if the
sync control was critical.

So, yes, we do need a way for overlays to augment the
controls supported by a database instance.

Kurt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Run-time registered controls
  - From: "Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>

References:
- Run-time registered controls
  - From: "Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>
- Re: Run-time registered controls
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: Run-time registered controls
  - From: "Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>

Prev by Date: Re: Run-time registered controls
Next by Date: Re: Run-time registered controls
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread