Hi, On Sunday, 3. December 2006 01:42, Eric Nichols wrote: > I think I understand where you are coming from. I didn't check the output > close enough. I didn't realize I was stepping on the original values, > rather I need to append them.. Unfortunately this is how AD stores this > extra information (seperate attribute). They do not use X- anything in > their attribute names.
Then you should ask them to do so and adhere to the standards. > So this leaves rock and hard place. If this were written correctly and the > attributes merged rather than replaced, could this be added to the code or > is this rejected summarily because it is non standard? I prefer adhering to the standards. They are documented and fully available to everyone (includeing MS) I consider including non-standard extensions into Net::LDAP::Schema dangerous for a few reasons: - we have to make sure it does not interfere with all the other directory servers out there that adhere to the standard - we have to do this with every other private extension as well This may lead to trouble in the long term. > I don't want to pursue this if it's going to be rejected on principal > rather than my shoddy coding.... Instead of mixing the non-standard-extensions into Net::LDAP::Schema one solution might be to create a subclass Net::LDAP:Schema::ADS specifically written for ADS and its non-standard extensions. This way the standard code is not tainted by ADS extensions and can work as before. Someone with ADS can then load Net::LDAP:Schema::ADS instead of Net::LDAP:Schema and all is well Regards Peter -- Peter Marschall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
