Re: Becomming redundant

[Adam Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org>]

>Is there a way to have a pacticular attribute actually point to another
>attribute's value..

Maybe in back-meta.

>Why??
>Becuase it seems these schemas are reinventing the wheel, thus requiring
>the admin to put the same information in many places.

Yes, this happens because people creating LDAP applications don't stop
and read the bleedin' documentation.

>Take Netscapes Address book for examle.  It querys the ldap server just
>fine, however, it will not show the address.  If one double click on the
>the ldap listing it shows all the values it collected from the ldap
>server.  And it shows an address "mailRoutingAddress", however, it will
>not put it in the right place.  However, if I use the correct schema for
>the Netscape Address book then I end up creating *another* attribute to
>house the email address.

Well, "mailRoutingAddress" isn't a user's e-mail address, "mail" is. 
"mail", "mailHost", "mailRoutingAddress", and "mailLocalAddress" each
have different and specific meanings - and a complex enterprise needs
them all.

>It would be allot easier if I could populate the value with a directive
>to tell the ladp server to go get a value from a different attribute. 
>Thus avoid the redundant transferring of the same info, thus easier
>maint.
>Am I way out line on this??  Or am I missing something all together?

People need to (a) use and understand the standards track schemas, (b)
stop using LDAP as though it is a sadly broken relational database, (c)
fix the applications that don't conform, (d) read the documentation, (e)
reread the documentation, and (f) read the documentation again.

Now, none of this has to do with OpenLDAP, and should probably be over
on umich's general LDAP list.