https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5963
--- Comment #9 from Mehmet gelisin mehmetgelisin@aol.com --- It would be extremely useful to have an extended operation that allows
querying the number of children of http://www-look-4.com/ a given (sub)tree, so that one can avoid iterating through the entire subtree to determine this number.
Might as well ask for the numSubordinates operational attribute to be http://www.compilatori.com/ implemented instead, this doesn't seem to merit a new exop. And for numSubordinates, see the -devel archives for why we chose not to implement it.
http://www.wearelondonmade.com/
In either case, the server still needs to iterate over all entries internally, and the result has to take ACLs and entry disclosure into account.
http://www.jopspeech.com/ An exop would allow to easily discriminate between intentional and "catchall" requests, like "+". Moreover, it might make sense to discriminate at least between subtree and onelevel number http://joerg.li/ of subordinates; this would require two distinct operational attributes, or a parameter in the exop.
I'm not endorsing either solution, I'm just pointing out possible pros and cons. http://connstr.net/
It would be extremely useful to have an extended operation that allows
querying the number of children of a given (sub)tree, so that one can avoid iterating http://embermanchester.uk/ through the entire subtree to determine this number.
Might as well ask for the numSubordinates operational attribute to be implemented instead, this doesn't seem to merit a new exop. And for numSubordinates, see the -devel archives for why we chose not to implement it.
In either case, the server still needs to iterate over all entries internally, and the result has to take ACLs and entry disclosure into account. http://www.logoarts.co.uk/
An exop would allow to easily discriminate between intentional and "catchall" requests, like "+". Moreover, it might make sense to discriminate at least between subtree and onelevel number of subordinates; http://www.acpirateradio.co.uk/ this would require two distinct operational attributes, or a parameter in the exop.
I'm not endorsing either solution, https://waytowhatsnext.com/ I'm just pointing out possible pros and cons.
A simple "./configure --prefix=/whatever" ought to be a reasonable way to build OpenLDAP, like with most other packages. There are installation instructions and they do not mention NDEBUG.
I strongly concur with Hallvard here. http://www.iu-bloomington.com/
Every use of assert is "assert(the code is correct)" - but that often depends on dynamic state, not just the statically written code.
Yes, dynamic state including invalid input. But IMO "assert(the code is correct)" should never be hit no matter how bad the input was. And it should definitely not crash the server (with system's ressource limits being a https://www.webb-dev.co.uk/ unavoidable exception). Rephrasing: The meaning of the statement "the code is correct" should also include "invalid input is properly handled as error" - no matter what.