Russ Allbery wrote:
Gavin Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'd love to also see, "It would be really helpful if x, y and x was
covered".
Ask and you shall receive. It would be really helpful if the slapd.access
man page said something more useful than:
The statement set=<pattern> is undocumented yet.
Anything but that. ;)
Sets are still experimental. The only existing doc is in the FAQ.
http://www.openldap.org/faq/index.cgi?file=1133
The syntax was recently (just a couple days ago) extended as noted in that FAQ
article.
They will likely continue to be experimental for some time yet.
In this particular case, it would help to get out of the experimental phase if
someone would write a spec of what sets *should* be able to do. I.e., we've
talked about "it would be cool if sets could be combined with regexes" but no
one has ever taken the time to define what that would mean.
So, for those of you using sets - why are they useful to you, and in what ways
are they still too limited? I personally am concerned that they are too
expensive to evaluate; if we could provide similar features using a less
general model that would be worth exploring too.
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
