Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Original comment by mrbigal...@gmail.com
on 1 Mar 2010 at 9:43
This might be easy to implement. It is valid for an LDAP entry to have multiple
uid and cn fields, as well as not
having any at all. Perhaps a filtering function would help here? If we place a
combo box on the top with possible
LDAP fields, and a combo box with comparison operators (= / !=) and an empty
text field for entering your
criteria, would that help? In that way you'd be able to specify that you only
want to see entries with
uid=myusername.
Original comment by mrbigal...@gmail.com
on 1 Mar 2010 at 10:01
Original comment by mrbigal...@gmail.com
on 1 Mar 2010 at 10:01
Could you please provide a drawing indication how you think the final should
look? I currently have only a very rough idea what you expect. But before I
start changing nearly the the whole look of the main window, I would like your
input first.
Original comment by matthiasblaesing1@googlemail.com
on 14 Sep 2010 at 7:42
Glad that you've been able to some of the issues. I'm just trying to catch up,
could we have a short chat on Google Chat, Messenger, Skype, in the near
future? You can catch me on Google Chat: allan.lykke.christensen@gmail.com,
MSN: allan@i2m.dk, Skype: allanlykkechristensen, Yahoo: allan_l_christensen
Original comment by mrbigal...@gmail.com
on 14 Sep 2010 at 9:54
As for me: in the attachement i've included very simple layout of the current
LDAP tree in the ldap-explorer application. As you can see, the uid's are not
sorted by uid name. Correct order should be: admin, manager, smikula, user. In
schemas where there is very long list of uid's in the tree it is very hard to
find uid in the tree visually.
In LDAP-Admin (free win32 application) there is sorting by uid name as in this
screen: http://ldapadmin.sourceforge.net/screenshots/appwin.jpg
Original comment by slawek.m...@gmail.com
on 19 Sep 2010 at 5:41
Attachments:
Hey, in subversion the treenodes are sorted by their visual label. This should
get the desired effect. If the naming element is not the same attribute type in
each node, then you see a difference from "alphabetical" order of the attribute
value, as the value is prefixed with the attribute name.
The release should happen in a not too distant future.
Original comment by matthiasblaesing1@googlemail.com
on 26 Oct 2010 at 1:54
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
slawek.m...@gmail.com
on 1 Mar 2010 at 8:59