Hi,
I'm back to work on the API support for OpenLDAP an other servers. I've
explored the situation a bit. I still do not know what was the original
reason for the relaxed mode (does anyone know?). But it looks like if I
make all the exceptions needed for processing OpenLDAP schema into the
re
Le 28/04/15 12:09, Radovan Semancik a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I'm back to work on the API support for OpenLDAP an other servers.
> I've explored the situation a bit. I still do not know what was the
> original reason for the relaxed mode (does anyone know?).
Yes !!
Let me explain : in Studio, and more s
On 04/28/2015 01:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Where on OpenLDAP schema do you need a LAX mode ? AFAICT, we are able
to parse all the OpenLDAP schemas in Strict mode...
There seems to be plenty of issues:
ERR_04486_VALUE_ALREADY_EXISTS The value 'preferredDeliveryMethod'
already exists in t
Le 30/04/15 18:08, Radovan Semancik a écrit :
> On 04/28/2015 01:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> Where on OpenLDAP schema do you need a LAX mode ? AFAICT, we are able
>> to parse all the OpenLDAP schemas in Strict mode...
>
> There seems to be plenty of issues:
> ERR_04486_VALUE_ALREADY_EXISTS
On 04/30/2015 07:21 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
I think we are too strict here. The OpenLDAP schema contain duplicate AT
declaration that should be fixed (I will fill an ITS for that), but in
any case, it should not be considered as an error by the schema parser.
Well, it is worse than that. I
Radovan Semancik wrote:
On 04/30/2015 07:21 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
I think we are too strict here. The OpenLDAP schema contain duplicate AT
declaration that should be fixed (I will fill an ITS for that), but in
any case, it should not be considered as an error by the schema parser.
Well,
Le 30/04/15 18:08, Radovan Semancik a écrit :
> On 04/28/2015 01:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> Where on OpenLDAP schema do you need a LAX mode ? AFAICT, we are able
>> to parse all the OpenLDAP schemas in Strict mode...
>
> There seems to be plenty of issues:
> ERR_04486_VALUE_ALREADY_EXISTS
Le 30/04/15 18:08, Radovan Semancik a écrit :
> On 04/28/2015 01:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> Where on OpenLDAP schema do you need a LAX mode ? AFAICT, we are able
>> to parse all the OpenLDAP schemas in Strict mode...
>
> There seems to be plenty of issues:
> ERR_04317 The created MatchingR
Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Le 30/04/15 18:08, Radovan Semancik a écrit :
On 04/28/2015 01:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Where on OpenLDAP schema do you need a LAX mode ? AFAICT, we are able
to parse all the OpenLDAP schemas in Strict mode...
There seems to be plenty of issues:
ERR_04486_VALUE
Le 01/05/15 11:37, Howard Chu a écrit :
> Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> Le 30/04/15 18:08, Radovan Semancik a écrit :
>>> On 04/28/2015 01:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Where on OpenLDAP schema do you need a LAX mode ? AFAICT, we are able
to parse all the OpenLDAP schemas in Strict mode..
On 04/30/2015 09:27 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
attributes used syntaxes that were not declared and so on.
Not possible in OpenLDAP, since we do full schema checking. 389DS,
like Sun and other Netscape-derived junk, probably is more careless here.
Well, I might be mistaken, but OpenLDAP 2.4.31 h
On 05/01/2015 10:45 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
I have to investigate those 5 errors. Do you have something pending
that I can use to debug ? Eventually pushing your code into a branch
could help !
I have no changes in the API if that is what you mean. It is clean trunk.
The client code is h
Le 01/05/15 16:29, Radovan Semancik a écrit :
> On 04/30/2015 09:27 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
>>> attributes used syntaxes that were not declared and so on.
>>
>> Not possible in OpenLDAP, since we do full schema checking. 389DS,
>> like Sun and other Netscape-derived junk, probably is more careless
>>
Le 01/05/15 16:36, Radovan Semancik a écrit :
> On 05/01/2015 10:45 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> I have to investigate those 5 errors. Do you have something pending
>> that I can use to debug ? Eventually pushing your code into a branch
>> could help !
>
> I have no changes in the API if that is
14 matches
Mail list logo