Adam Young wrote:
On 06/16/2010 07:13 PM, Adam Young wrote:
On 06/16/2010 07:03 PM, Adam Young wrote:
On 06/16/2010 05:09 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Adam Young wrote:
I was comparing what we have in the LDAP schema versus what we are
coming up with for the UI. These are the fields that the us
On 06/16/2010 07:13 PM, Adam Young wrote:
On 06/16/2010 07:03 PM, Adam Young wrote:
On 06/16/2010 05:09 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Adam Young wrote:
I was comparing what we have in the LDAP schema versus what we are
coming up with for the UI. These are the fields that the user
object returns
On 06/16/2010 07:03 PM, Adam Young wrote:
On 06/16/2010 05:09 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Adam Young wrote:
I was comparing what we have in the LDAP schema versus what we are
coming up with for the UI. These are the fields that the user
object returns if you request -all:
We should either kee
On 06/16/2010 05:09 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Adam Young wrote:
I was comparing what we have in the LDAP schema versus what we are
coming up with for the UI. These are the fields that the user object
returns if you request -all:
We should either keep the UI to only showing a subset of these
Adam Young wrote:
I was comparing what we have in the LDAP schema versus what we are
coming up with for the UI. These are the fields that the user object
returns if you request -all:
We should either keep the UI to only showing a subset of these fields,
or expand the default schema to have t
I was comparing what we have in the LDAP schema versus what we are
coming up with for the UI. These are the fields that the user object
returns if you request -all:
We should either keep the UI to only showing a subset of these fields,
or expand the default schema to have the fields that we w
