[midPoint] New ldap connector and auxiliary objectClasses

[Jason Everling]

A built-in AD connector? Wow, that is great! Does that mean we would not
have to rely on a connector server anymore?

JASON

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Radovan Semancik <
radovan.semancik at evolveum.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 10/23/2015 03:20 PM, midpoint at mybtinternet.com wrote:
>
>>    I agree with your principals around retrieving and interpreting the
>> schema. However,
>>    attribute names are not supposed to be case sensitive. I have worked
>> with many
>>    servers, and have only encountered one that was. I believe this was
>> configurable
>>    in that particular server.
>>
>
> Yes, that's right. They are not supposed to be case sensitive. But I think
> it is good practice for operations to use the same capitalization as is
> specified in the schema. I have seen some problems with this in the past.
> I'm not sure how much this applies to current LDAP servers, but it is
> perhaps better to stay on the safe side. And the same applies to object
> classes. Actually, I have seen a problem with objectclass name
> capitalization just a couple of days ago ...
>
>    As for the server that provided no syntax definitions; wow!! I have not
>> encountered
>>    that before ... do you mean when querying the server or no syntax
>> period?
>>
>
> Actually, the attributeTypes definition provided syntax OID (otherwise it
> would be a complete disaster). But there was no ldapSyntaxes definition.
> None at all. Fortunately, the Apache Directory API still works with this.
> Just instead of attributeType.getSyntax().getOid() I had to use
> attibuteType.getSyntaxOid() - which seems to be the same but it is not. The
> former takes OID from ldapSyntaxes definition, the latter takes it from
> attributeTypes definition. So obviously, the former fails if there are no
> ldapSyntaxes definition. Simple fix, but unless you encounter a server like
> that it is hard to believe that this can actually happen ...
>
> So, the bottom line is that the more LDAP servers are tested with the new
> LDAP connector the more robust it will become. For now we have tested it
> with OpenLDAP, OpenDJ, OpenDS, 389ds, eDirectory and Active Directory. I'd
> appreciate reports of connector success/failure with any other directory
> server.
>
>
> --
> Radovan Semancik
> Software Architect
> evolveum.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> midPoint mailing list
> midPoint at lists.evolveum.com
> http://lists.evolveum.com/mailman/listinfo/midpoint
>



-- 
JASON

-- 


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail together with any attachments is proprietary and confidential; 
intended for only the recipient(s) named above and may contain information 
that is privileged. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any 
attachments for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of the contents to 
any person. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the 
author and do not represent those of the Baptist School of Health 
Professions. If you have received this e-mail in error, or are not the 
named recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender 
and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications 
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. Please immediately notify the 
sender and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.evolveum.com/pipermail/midpoint/attachments/20151023/0d443885/attachment.htm>