On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 04:01:53PM +0100, Christophe Wolfhugel wrote:
> On 13/06/13 15:45, Brian Reichert wrote:
> > Why not do a string compare on the output of
> > Net::LDAP::Util::canonical_dn()?
>
> I am not sure this would work as the canonical_dn would not change case for
> the attribute va
--On Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:01 PM +0100 Christophe Wolfhugel
wrote:
On 13/06/13 15:45, Brian Reichert wrote:
Why not do a string compare on the output of
Net::LDAP::Util::canonical_dn()?
I am not sure this would work as the canonical_dn would not change case
for the attribute values, so:
On 13/06/13 15:45, Brian Reichert wrote:
> Why not do a string compare on the output of Net::LDAP::Util::canonical_dn()?
I am not sure this would work as the canonical_dn would not change case for
the attribute values, so:
SN=Aéroport and SN=AÉROPORT would be different in string comparison, but
a
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:36:58AM +0100, Christophe Wolfhugel wrote:
> Good day everyone.
>
> I was wondering if it would make sense to have a DN comparison function
> part of Net::LDAP? Whilst in most cases a simple string comparison could
> make it, there are always cases where this is not so e
Good day everyone.
I was wondering if it would make sense to have a DN comparison function
part of Net::LDAP? Whilst in most cases a simple string comparison could
make it, there are always cases where this is not so easy, particularly
when comparison functions are not identical.
See code below f
