Re: >= (greater or equal) and <= (lower or equal) operators in

[Pierangelo Masarati <ando@sys-net.it>]

Greg Matthews wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 15:19, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
>  
>
> > I think the standard is missing it on purpose, because regular usage
> > doesn't need anything but exact match.  Note that uidNumber to uid mapping
> > only needs to use uidNumber as a key for exact filters.  If you want to
> > use it for a different purpose, you should choose a different
> > attributeType, or design your own.
> >    
>
> I think this is too prescriptive. How do you define regular usage? 
replacement of file-based nis

> I can
> think of a couple of reasons why you might want to search a range of
> uidnumbers. I'm sure there are other reasons for wanting to use these
> inequality matches for other attributes too.
>  
Administration, IMO, is not regular usage.  I agree there might be even 
more
than a couple of reasons for having more matching rules; for sure, the 
application
that generates new uidNumbers would not benefit from having an ordering
match, because the only reliable way to have a unique incremental uidNumber
generation in a reliable manner is to store the next available uidNumber 
in a
"cn=Next uidNumber" entry and atomically increment and get it.  Of course,
there might be other applications that could benefit from using the 
uidNumber;
someone (you?) wrote about having the need to determine if a uidNumber is
within a certain range of "special" uidNmbers.  Well, I think this not 
"regular
usage" (my opinion, of course), and this type of operation can and 
should done
programmatically without relying on the capabilitiles of the DSA or of the
protocol.

I agree we've gone far off-topic, anyway :)

Ciao, p.



   SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497