Sorry for top post. What about returning the defaults only with
manage
dsa set like with dynlist?
An interesting idea. Unfortunately the way things currently work, it's not
practical. The config entries are not built on-the-fly for each search
request, they're held persistently in memory (and in the underlying
back-ldif). They would need to be built on the fly to react to the ManageDSA
control as you suggest.
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.
T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghenry(a)suretec.co.uk
Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).
http://www.suretecsystems.com/
Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotland. Registered
number: SC258005. Registered office: 24 Cormack Park, Rothienorman, Inverurie,
Aberdeenshire, AB51 8GL.
Subject to disclaimer at
http://www.suretecgroup.com/disclaimer.html
Do you know we have our own VoIP provider called SureVoIP? See
http://www.surevoip.co.uk
On 19 Aug 2012, at 21:14, Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote:
> openldap-commit2devel(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote:
>> - Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> commit 842d1b5a17d19e17bcc420d972c310a416b2000b
>> Author: Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org>
>> Date: Sun Aug 19 12:49:02 2012 -0700
>>
>> Added delete support
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Summary of changes:
>> servers/slapd/back-meta/config.c | 233 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> servers/slapd/back-meta/init.c | 2 +
>> 2 files changed, 228 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> This reminds me, we still don't have a clear policy on how cn=config should
> present settings that have their default value. Personally I would prefer that
> settings at their default value not be displayed. Unfortunately the semantics
> get rather muddled.
>
> Deleting a value should always mean returning it to its default setting. In
> the case of back-meta, per-target configuration can be initially inherited
> from the base configuration. The question then is, when you've allowed a
> target config to take the setting from the base, do you expect future changes
> to the base to also change the targets? It's similar to the referential
> integrity problem. My feeling is that it's not worth the trouble to maintain
> such a thing. Which probably means we should always return all attributes and
> values in cn=config all the time, so that all values are explicitly configured.
>
> Other opinions?
>
>> ---
>>
http://www.openldap.org/devel/gitweb.cgi?p=openldap.git
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -- Howard Chu
> CTO, Symas Corp.
http://www.symas.com
> Director, Highland Sun
http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
> Chief Architect, OpenLDAP
http://www.openldap.org/project/
>
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp.