Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > > On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Michael Ströder wrote: > >> Kurt Zeilenga wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 10, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Michael Ströder wrote: >>> >>>> Discussed this very briefly with Howard at LDAPcon 2007 based on an >>>> idea >>>> of Steve: >>>> >>>> Support for dITStructureRules and nameForms is still in OpenLDAP's >>>> TODO. >>>> >>>> In the meanwhile slapd could accept definitions for both in slapd.conf >>>> and simply pass them on to a schema-aware LDAP client for informational >>>> purpose without enforcing them. Same function like rootDSE <file> in >>>> slapd.conf. >>>> >>>> Opinions? >>> >>> One could implement them in a fashion similar to ditContentRules... >>> (server wide instead of subtree specfication wide). >> >> So you're voting against the approach suggested above? > > No. Above you say "without enforcing them". I suggest "with enforcing > them", as ditContentRules are (if instantiated).
Well, this has been a while now. I understand that it would be much work to fully implement this. But since web2ldap fully supports DIT structures rules and nameforms when adding/renaming entries it would be nice if I could stuff these schema elements into the subschema subentry even if slapd does not enforce them. Just as a hint to the client like the X-SUBST declaration of syntaxes (see ITS#5663) or the rootDSE directive for extending the rootDSE with the data read from a LDIF file. It's handy because web2ldap then guides the user to do the right thing (choosing structural object class and the RDN). Yes, I could extend web2ldap to define additional schema elements at the client-side. But I'd prefer if it's just in the server's subschema subentry. Ciao, Michael.
