Still worth keeping cn=rootdse and cn=templates?

[Stefan (metze) Metzmacher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

simo schrieb:
> On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 16:24 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 16:03 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>> As I move on to more strict schema checks, the cn=rootdse and
>>> cn=templates entries in the Samdb are becoming increasingly painful.
>>> This is because they contain attributes not present in the schema, and
>>> don't have an objectClass.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering, should we move these to a different database, or somehow
>>> ignored by the module chain?
>>>
>>> For the rootdse case, it would be possible to rename cn=rootdse to
>>> @ROOTDSE, but what should we do with cn=templates?
>> This patch implements the move to @ROOTDSE for that half of the problem.
> 
> What do you return as DN?
> 
> If I read the patch right (but it is late) you are returnig @ROOTDSE not
> cn=rootdse 

the DN for the client is "".

metze
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHJs6Nm70gjA5TCD8RAqtXAJ0XvhUt9dJFCyOIEjUn0kcanc2wBgCdF7I8
kZCZc3AFDf8V/vsYBNmhXRo=
=wfRo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----