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

RE: searching for >=

I'll buy that.  But how about integer ordered matching on uidNumber?
Any problems lurking?

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Chu [mailto:hyc@highlandsun.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:40 PM
To: 'Lon Tierney'; mdenk@whidbey.net
Cc: h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no; openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: RE: searching for >=

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
> [mailto:owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Lon Tierney

> If integerOrderMatch is implemented in your version of
> OpenLDAP then you
> probably have version 2.1.x. This is a good thing!
> Assuming the above, there should be no issue with changing the schema.
> iPlanet took a different approach and assumed that everything
> is a string
> (or literal), and the matching rules apply to all attributes. I am not
> saying that is a good or bad thing, but they do allow ordered
> matching on
> all integer fields (read: you can do it in iPlanet, so it may
> not be such
> a bad thing, but then you can do anything in iPlanet so this
> may not be a
> valid argument).

Without even thinking for a second, I can tell you iPlanet's approach is
a
bad thing. String-based ordering rules are not validly applicable to
integers. Not unless you're OK with the assertion that '9' >= '10'.

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
  http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support