Hi Emmanuel,
On 06/17/2015 04:21 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Hi guys,
we have a serious problem with the way we deal with the various LDAP
server we want to support. Well, I would say we try to avoid knowing
which server we are talking to, expecting all the servers to provide
pure and
Le 18/06/15 00:59, Stefan Seelmann a écrit :
On 06/17/2015 11:32 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Le 17/06/15 21:11, Stefan Seelmann a écrit :
So you talk about the Schema Editor, right?
no, in my case, I'm talking about the OpenLDAP config editor, which
tries to read the config from a running
On 06/17/2015 11:32 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Le 17/06/15 21:11, Stefan Seelmann a écrit :
So you talk about the Schema Editor, right?
no, in my case, I'm talking about the OpenLDAP config editor, which
tries to read the config from a running server.
Oh. you use the
Le 17/06/15 21:11, Stefan Seelmann a écrit :
Hi Emmanuel,
On 06/17/2015 04:21 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Hi guys,
we have a serious problem with the way we deal with the various LDAP
server we want to support. Well, I would say we try to avoid knowing
which server we are talking to,
Hi guys,
we have a serious problem with the way we deal with the various LDAP
server we want to support. Well, I would say we try to avoid knowing
which server we are talking to, expecting all the servers to provide
pure and compatible LDAP information.
Sadly, this is not a perfect world, and
I support the idea of listing the servers our Studio product works with. It
help clarify the message to our (potential) adopters. It also helps
building the community.
But what numbers (regarding servers - supported vs unsupported) are we
talking about? Maybe we should talk with the product
