Craig Foster wrote: ----- > Wouldn't a LDAP schema change be better? > Adding fields requires an additional line in the schema, and additional > lines in whatever is reading or writing that particular record. > It would be a good idea to forward the schema and changes to Mitel, as the > mobile field is a rather important peice of information these days.
Good point, but that is already covered. The objectClasses organizationalPerson and inetOrgPerson already cover what I was planning on adding, they are already defined in the server and I will be inserting the correct objectClass lines in each entry. Actually, from what I understand the current Mitel implementation already violates the schema (note: I am not an LDAP expert) as they have only defined entries as "person" and the current fields require "organizationalPerson" and "inetOrgPerson" to be assigned for each user entry. Not sure if this breaks anything though (and schema-checking is disabled). JP -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
