Re: Object Class Violation

Yeah, DA used to add inetorgperson to the list of object classes, but I
think organizationalperson was originally in to provide for the host
attribute.  What's the status on that particular behavior?

El mar, 02-08-2005 a las 09:40 +0200, Dieter Kluenter escribió:
> Hi,
> 
> "Neil Schneider" <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) said:
> [...]
> >> Feel free to deploy an alternative solution, but we need to get to a
> >> consensus and fast.  Many people are claiming DA is useless because of
> >> this problem.  Truth of the matter we should simply deploy new schemas
> >> and that is that.  But I would so very much like to preserve on
> >> persons
> >> as many useful object classes as possible, instead of reinventing the
> >> wheel.
> >
> > I have a suggestion, that you may take for what it's worth. I would
> > suggest making a configuration option where the user/administrator can
> > configure from a list of object classes of their choosing, creating a
> > "template, if you will for each account. My testing indicates that for
> > my purposes I needed the following objectclasses.
> >
> > objectClass: top
> > objectClass: account
> > objectClass: posixAccount
> > objectClass: shadowAccount
> > objectClass: sambaSamAccount
> 
> Never use object class account attributes to describe persons, you
> will get into trouble if you ever want to add attributes like mail or
> telephoneNumber. Object classes posixAccount and sambaSamAccount are
> somehow misleading as in fact these classes are describing persons and
> not an account. 
> I would prefer person, or even better inetorgPerson, as structural
> object class.
> 
> -Dieter
> 
-- 
                Rudd-O          <[email protected]>
                http://www.amautacorp.com/staff/Rudd-O/