<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Simo Sorce <<a href="mailto:simo@redhat.com">simo@redhat.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 13:59 +0100, Marco Pizzoli wrote: > Hi Simo, > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Simo Sorce <<a href="mailto:simo@redhat.com">simo@redhat.com</a>> wrote: > On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 11:12 +0100, Marco Pizzoli wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > I extended my set of LDAP objectClasses associated to users > by adding > > my new objectClass to my cn=ipaConfig LDAP entry, the > > ipaUserObjectClasses attribute. > > Then, I created a new user with the web ui and I see the new > > objectClass associated with that user, but as structural > instead of > > auxiliary. I don't know why, could you help me? > > > > Same thing happened for my groups. I added 3 objectClasses > and now I > > see all of them as structural. I would understand an answer: > all > > objectClasses eventually result as structural, but so why, > for > > example, the ipaObject is still an auxiliary objectClass? > > > The objectClass type depends on the schema. It is not > something that > changes after you assign it to an object. > > Yes, your answer surely does make sense. > > My question was triggered by the fact that, AFAICS, not all > objectClasses are structural as well. > In fact I can see that, for my group object, the objectClass > "ipaobject" has been defined as auxiliary, while others structural. > For users, I see that *only my objectClass* is defined as structural. > All others as auxiliary. > > In attachment you can see 2 images that immediately represent what I'm > trying to explain. > > If this was the intended behaviour, I would be really interested in > knowing what is the rationale behind this. > Only curiousity, as usual :-) </div></div>Objectclasses have no structureal/auxiliary "attribute" in an object, it's your ldap browser that is returning the labeling by (I guess ) searching the schema. </blockquote><div> Exact. I admit I have not been so clear in my explanation. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> I guess your object is getting it wrong, or the schema you defined in 389ds has these classes marked structural. > search the schema with your browser and see how it identify these classes ? </blockquote><div> In attachment. You can find only one, but all of them are equivalent from this point. They are indeed seen as structural, even if my added schema file declare them as auxiliary. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> I see you also opened a bug, but it makes little sense to me. I will close it as invalid for now, unless there is evidence 389ds returns the wrong type from the schema tree. </blockquote><div> Ok, I agree. Thanks as usual Marco </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"> Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York </div></div></blockquote></div>