[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: >= (greater or equal) and <= (lower or equal) operators in
> On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 07:59, Alexandre Garel wrote:
>> > More to your question: Does the schema allow inequality filters on
>> > those attributes?
>> >
>> > --Quanah
>>
>> Ok, I finally looked in RFC 2252 and found that my attribute must have
>> ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch. in their definition (which is not the
>> case as I have standard definition).
>> Declaring the filter 'undefined' if it does not have the ORDER
>> directive is also part of the specification.
>
> I've just grepped through my schema files, most of which came as
> standard with OpenLDAP-2.2.13 plus one or two others. There is only one
> attribute in all the schema files with this ORDERING directive:
>
> attributetype ( 2.5.4.46 NAME 'dnQualifier'
> DESC 'RFC2256: DN qualifier'
> EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
> ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
> SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
> SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44 )
>
> Is there no call for this sort of matching in filters then? Doesnt
> anyone need to:
>
> ldapsearch -x "(uidnumber>=1000)"
There are more in the builtin schema, in servers/slapd/schema_prep.c
>
> Is it considered breaking standard schema to add ORDERING rules into
> them?
absolutely.
p.
--
Pierangelo Masarati
mailto:pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it
SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497