Le 6 août 2011 16:30, "Michael Ströder" <michael(a)stroeder.com> a écrit :
Erwann ABALEA wrote:
> Le 6 août 2011 15:49, "Michael Ströder" <michael(a)stroeder.com
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> a écrit :
>> harry.jede(a)arcor.de <mailto:email@example.com> wrote:
>> > The cleanest approach is to modify your OU entries:
>> > objectClass: top
>> > objectClass: organizationalUnit
>> > objectClass: extensibleObject
>> > Now, all attributes which are defined in any schema are allowed :-) .
>> That's what I consider bad advice and definitely not the cleanest
> This is equivalent to your solutions 1 and 2, described 3 days ago.
No, it's not since 'extensibleObject' is a special auxiliary object class
actually circumventing schema checking. I proposed to use a custom
object class specifically allowing the needed attributes.
Sorry, my fault, I didn't know this class. If it disables schema checking,
then you're right, it's bad.