thanks, I agree, first I thought that weighted valsort could be used to give an importance grade to a set of attributes, but I agree, it seems it is of much limited use
(other limitation : it's quite impossible to delete/modify a weighted entry, because you need to include the weight ({3} for example) in the LDIF delete/modify instruction file. Given that the weight value is never returned by searches, it's impossible to know that weight, thus impossible to delete the attribute, unless that information has been stored somewhere else)
Le 11/02/2013 18:35, Michael Ströder a écrit :
IMO this example clearly shows that the {} approach is a hack limited to certain use-cases (e.g. ACLs etc. in back-config).
Ciao, Michael.
Benin Technologies wrote:
Hi Quanah,
I just found an old post of yours, and I'd be interested to know if and how you solved that problem, because I ran into the same need.
Thanks Ben
- *To*: *openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.orgmailto:openldap-devel%40OpenLDAP.org*
- *Subject*: *valsort& telephoneNumber*
- *From*: *Quanah Gibson-Mount<quanah@stanford.edu mailto:quanah%40stanford.edu>*
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:11:07 -0700
- Content-disposition: inline
We would like to be able to use valsort to weight telephoneNumber values in OpenLDAP. However, modifications of that type get rejected by the SYNTAX validation for telephoneNumber because it contains {}'s. Is it reasonable to expect to be able to override the SYNTAX in this case? Should valsort be modified to do so? Basically, the desired behavior would be for the non-weighted part (i.e., the actual data) of the value to be validated via the SYNTAX rules, but the weight part at the beginning ignored.
--Quanah
-- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Developer ITS/Shared Application Services Stanford University GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.htmlhttp://www.stanford.edu/%7Equanah/pgp.html