Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:53:53AM -0400, Mello, Cody wrote:
>
> > > This needs a better user interface.
> >
> > In which ways? Do you mean to avoid making people follow the RFC2247
> > style of writing the base DN? Or is there something else?
>
> The "%," notation could perhaps be less cryptic or more general.
>
> Wietse wanted it to be a more general mechanism for iterating over
> domain components to produce a result.
Consider, for example, the pipe(8) daemon which has iterating macros.
There, the iteration is over the set of recipient addresses, while
with ldap_table it would be over the set of domain labels.
For example, ($recipient) expands into (recipient1) (recipient2)...
Instead of hard-coding the "(" and the ")" they are configurable
so that the same mechanimsm can be used for other text. I shamelessly
stole this from Sendmail which I used for 10+ years before Postfix.
In the case of ldap_table I'd also like to see that the decorative
"dc=" text is configurable. If the comma is configurable, even better.
For example, "dc=%{labels:d,}" produces a comma-separated list of
"dc=example, dc=com" given an email address of u...@example.com.
Wietse
> I could not come up with any plausible use-cases beyond generation
> of comma separated "dc=label" lists.
>
> If anyone can suggest additional use-cases where one might use some
> iterator to build a string out of the domain components for LDAP
> or even the various SQL tables, please post.
> I still think that "%," is reasonably natural, and has no obvious
> useful generalizations without simply passing the domain to
> for processing via interpreted code.
>
> --
> Viktor.
>
