Subject: [ldapext] Dynamic values in LDIF

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 11:28:33 -0700

It's difficult (well, impossible I guess) to write an LDIF file which
can be used to update schema because one never knows the name of the
subschema subentry in effect for the object(s) for which the schema is
being updated. (I'm assuming a DSA which can modify schema. i.e.
X.501(93) Clause 14.5).
 
If LDIF were extended to allow (at least) DN replacement, this would
allow an LDIF to be used to update schema (without the LDIF being
modified for each DSA it is to be applied to). Something like an
assignment directive in form of a search URL could be used to assign a
value to a variable, then that variable could be used in subsequent LDIF
records.
 
Is there any effort underway to do something like this?
 
Jim
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext

---

From: Michael Ströder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:15:25 +0100

Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> subschema subentry in effect for the object(s) for which the schema
> is being updated. (I'm assuming a DSA which can modify schema. i.e. 
> X.501(93) Clause 14.5).

There's not a single sub schema sub entry. In fact there could be many.
=> you have to know something a priory about the DSA before updating one 
of its sub schema sub entries.

 > Is there any effort underway to do something like this?

Frankly I don't believe it's worth to think about something like this 
any further. If you modify something like the sub schema via LDAP you 
already implemented kind of a LDAP client and pointed it to a specific 
server.

Ciao, Michael.

---

From: Michael Ströder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:15:25 +0100

Ciao, Michael.

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:47:59 -0500

We discussed some ideas along these lines when I was at Netscape.  Our 
conclusion was that this took LDIF too close to a scripting language, 
and that standardization of such a thing probably would be difficult. 
But no one can stop you from trying ;-)

-Mark

---

From: Michael Ströder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:55:50 +0100

> conclusion was that this took LDIF too close to a scripting language,

;-)

> But no one can stop you from trying ;-)

Even when blowing up LDIF to a powerful scripting language this "LDIF 
script" would need DSA-specific input parameters (see my other response).

Ciao, Michael.