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

Re: Question about syntax check and back-sql

To: ando@sys-net.it
Subject: Re: Question about syntax check and back-sql
From: ZhangPu <zhang@fjh.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:53:25 +0900
Cc: OpenLDAP-Sofｔware <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
In-reply-to: <40140.131.175.154.56.1100855079.squirrel@131.175.154.56>
References: <20041119114341.C8CB.ZHANG@fjh.fujitsu.com> <40140.131.175.154.56.1100855079.squirrel@131.175.154.56>

Thanks for the detailed answer.

> > It seemed like the current back-sql
> 
> what's current?  what number?
I have used 2.2.11. 
I didn't test it with 2.2.18.

> What do you mean by "all"?  All objectClasses and attributeTypes typically
> loaded into "cn=subschema"?  No, and I don't think it is even reasonable,
> given the logic that is behind back-sql implementation.  If you mean a
> somewhat realistic example, the answer is: Yes (see below).
"All" meant the definition in schema file which openldap supported. 

Pu Zhang

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Question about syntax check and back-sql
  - From: "Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>

References:
- Question about syntax check and back-sql
  - From: ZhangPu <zhang@fjh.fujitsu.com>
- Re: Question about syntax check and back-sql
  - From: "Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>

Prev by Date: Re: Master and Slave (and the other way around) [auf Viren überprüft]
Next by Date: Re: Question about syntax check and back-sql
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread