[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: >= (greater or equal) and <= (lower or equal) operators in
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 04:19:26PM +0200, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
>> I think the standard is missing it on purpose, because regular usage
>> doesn't need anything but exact match. Note that uidNumber to uid
> This is getting off-topic for the OL list, I'll stop here, I promise.
> Why would it hurt to add this rule do uidnumber (besides breaking the
> It's sort of a convention that, for example, UIDs < 500 and UIDs < 100 are
> reserved, at least in the Linux case.
> It's a number, why is it forbidden to test for <=?
>> only needs to use uidNumber as a key for exact filters. If you want to
>> use it for a different purpose, you should choose a different
>> attributeType, or design your own.
> That's what this current schema is forcing us to do. On the other hand,
> add another attribute with a number identifying an user if there is
> one and I only need to test for <= and >=? It's not like I'm using
> to store the social security number or something like it, far from it.
>> Then just design your own, or propose a draft for standard emendation,
>> don't hijack others, or you'll run into interoperability problems,
>> or later.
> A third option was to ask the author why the schema is the way it is.
> there is something I'm not seeing. But so far no answer.
Asking is always alowed, I guess. And suggestions should always be
welcome. However, I'm not the one who wrote it, and I'm not even a user
of that schema, so I might be missing some essential detail.
SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497