On 16/11/15 13:20, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 16/11/15 06:02, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 11/16/2015 10:32 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote:
...
And in general I am opposed to have
On 16/11/15 06:02, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 11/16/2015 10:32 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote:
...
And in general I am opposed to have a separate object on performance
grounds (for clients) and also on the fact that is
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 16/11/15 06:02, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 11/16/2015 10:32 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote:
...
And in general I am opposed to have a separate object on performance
grounds
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 11/16/2015 10:32 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote:
...
And in general I am opposed to have a separate object on performance
grounds (for clients) and also on the fact that
On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote:
...
And in general I am opposed to have a separate object on performance
grounds (for clients) and also on the fact that is becomes tricky to
keep objects in sync.
What exactly is the performance issue there? To
On 11/16/2015 10:32 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote:
...
And in general I am opposed to have a separate object on performance
grounds (for clients) and also on the fact that is becomes tricky to
keep objects in sync.
On 13.11.2015 14:41, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 11/11/15 09:30, Martin Basti wrote:
On 11.11.2015 14:52, Martin Basti wrote:
Comments inline
Martin^2
On 11.11.2015 09:24, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
On 11/05/2015 06:17 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 4.11.2015 15:20, Martin Basti wrote:
Hello,
we
On 13.11.2015 16:40, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote:
On 13.11.2015 14:41, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 11/11/15 09:30, Martin Basti wrote:
On 11.11.2015 14:52, Martin Basti wrote:
Comments inline
Martin^2
On 11.11.2015 09:24, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
On 11/05/2015
On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote:
On 13.11.2015 14:41, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 11/11/15 09:30, Martin Basti wrote:
On 11.11.2015 14:52, Martin Basti wrote:
Comments inline
Martin^2
On 11.11.2015 09:24, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
On 11/05/2015 06:17 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 4.11.2015
On 13/11/15 11:51, Martin Basti wrote:
On 13.11.2015 16:40, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote:
On 13.11.2015 14:41, Simo Sorce wrote:
On 11/11/15 09:30, Martin Basti wrote:
On 11.11.2015 14:52, Martin Basti wrote:
Comments inline
Martin^2
On 11.11.2015 09:24,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:40:27AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 13.11.2015 14:41, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>On 11/11/15 09:30, Martin Basti wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 11.11.2015 14:52, Martin Basti wrote:
> Comments inline
> Martin^2
>
>
On 11/11/15 09:30, Martin Basti wrote:
On 11.11.2015 14:52, Martin Basti wrote:
Comments inline
Martin^2
On 11.11.2015 09:24, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
On 11/05/2015 06:17 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 4.11.2015 15:20, Martin Basti wrote:
Hello,
we (Standa and I) had offline discussion and
On 11/05/2015 06:17 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 4.11.2015 15:20, Martin Basti wrote:
Hello,
we (Standa and I) had offline discussion and I proposed following idea:
1) create new entry in LDAP for "time rule" instead of adding the time rule
string directly into HBACRule.
This will allow to
Comments inline
Martin^2
On 11.11.2015 09:24, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
On 11/05/2015 06:17 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 4.11.2015 15:20, Martin Basti wrote:
Hello,
we (Standa and I) had offline discussion and I proposed following idea:
1) create new entry in LDAP for "time rule" instead of
On 11.11.2015 14:52, Martin Basti wrote:
Comments inline
Martin^2
On 11.11.2015 09:24, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
On 11/05/2015 06:17 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 4.11.2015 15:20, Martin Basti wrote:
Hello,
we (Standa and I) had offline discussion and I proposed following idea:
1) create
On 4.11.2015 15:20, Martin Basti wrote:
>
>
> On 04.11.2015 13:46, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The fixed patches to Martin^2's and Jakub's reviews are almost ready, there
>> are just a few things left. Martin B. mentioned in his review that '~' might
>> not be the best delimiter for
Hi,
The fixed patches to Martin^2's and Jakub's reviews are almost ready,
there are just a few things left. Martin B. mentioned in his review that
'~' might not be the best delimiter for range values in the HBAC time
policies language as it is not commonly used for that purpose. I started
On 04.11.2015 13:46, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
Hi,
The fixed patches to Martin^2's and Jakub's reviews are almost ready,
there are just a few things left. Martin B. mentioned in his review
that '~' might not be the best delimiter for range values in the HBAC
time policies language as it is
18 matches
Mail list logo
