Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
Howard Chu writes:
>> Add a slapd.conf directive which inserts an implicit X-ORDERED 'VALUES'
>> in an already existing attribute definition. (...)
> OK, that makes sense. Except it's not the same as X-ORDERED 'VALUES'
> behavior. (...)
Yes, I guess that should have been the opposite, an 'X-PRESERVE-ORDER'
thing, to tell slapd to not reorder values. (I have a distinct feeling
I've made that exact mistake before...)
> I don't think objectclass shorthand makes sense here. It would be pretty
> unusual to need this feature on e.g. all the attributes of inetOrgPerson.
True, but it can be useful to define object classes that are only to be
used in config directives, not in entries.
Sounds like you want the X.500 attribute-sets feature. Though I suppose
there's no harm in subverting abstract objectclasses for this purpose.
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/