The second link you provided (at port 389.org) specifically mentions using the 
“account” objectclass.  I don’t have access to RHN to read the first link, 
though.

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rich Megginson
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:46 AM
To: Anderson, Cary@CIO
Cc: 'General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.'
Subject: Re: [389-users] Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add 
attributes

 

On 07/10/2012 09:01 AM, Anderson, Cary@CIO wrote: 

Thanks for the quick response.

 

The RHN knowledgebase article I found was titled:  "How to use "host" attribute 
to limit ldap users can be accessed by specified host?"  kb# 65838

https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/solutions/65838


It doesn't say anything about an "Account" objectclass.

See also http://port389.org/wiki/Howto:Posix




 

 

 

From: Rich Megginson [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 9:14 AM
To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.
Cc: Anderson, Cary@CIO
Subject: Re: [389-users] Question regarding Combining ObjectClasses to add 
attributes

 

On 07/09/2012 09:44 AM, Anderson, Cary@CIO wrote: 

I have recently started working with the Director Server, and I have read the 
documents for both 389 and RHDS, but I am having some difficulties regarding 
ObjectClass types, and combining them in order to extend the available 
attributes for an object.  The documents indicate that you can only have one 
Structural ObjectClass and multiple Aux. ObjectClasses, and I'm a bit hazy on 
the rules for Abstract ObjectClasses.  

If I take the example of needing to add the "host" attribute to a user object.  
A RHN knowledgebase article indicates to add the "hostobject" ObjectClass 
rather than the "Account" ObjectClass. 


Can you provide a link to this kbase article?





My assumption was that "hostobject" was an Aux. ObjectClass, and that "Account" 
was Structural, but when I look at the two ObjectClasses via the administrative 
GUI, they both have "Top" listed as the parent ObjectClass.  So I'm not certain 
why one is appropriate and the other is not.

It would appear the console does not tell you if the objectclass is structural, 
auxiliary, or abstract.  You cannot tell by just the inheritance - by default, 
all objectclasses have "top" as the superior unless otherwise specified.

This is the official LDAPv3 description - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4512.txt

An entry may have only one STRUCTURAL objectclass, and multiple AUXILIARY 
objectclasses.  Chances are you will want to use AUXILIARY objectclasses for 
your extra attributes (like posixAccount) and just use one of the pre-defined 
objectclasses (like inetOrgPerson) as your STRUCTURAL objectclass.





Moving forward I want to be able to combine ObjectClasses to extend available 
objects without introducing data integrity issues in my ldap directory.  I am 
looking for some clarification of rules regarding structural objectclasses,

See rfc4512




and if there is an easy way via the admin gui to tell the difference between 
structural, auxillary, and abstract objectclasses. 

No.  You'll have to search cn=schema to check:
ldapsearch -xLLL -s base -b "cn=schema" "objectclass=*" objectclasses | perl 
-p0e 's/\n //g' | grep AUXILIARY

Note that ldapsearch wraps the output, so you'll have to use perl (or sed) to 
unwrap - see http://richmegginson.livejournal.com/18726.html




Also will the directory do some sort of intregrity checking if you attempt to 
combine improper objectclasses either via commandline or the admin gui?

Yes, although by default 389 will allow an entry to have multiple structural 
objectclasses, but that will change in a future release, so don't rely on that 
behavior.




 

Thanks

 

 

           Cary Anderson

              916.464.5108

Linux Support | Engineering Dept.

 







--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

 

 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

Reply via email to