|
Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Full Text Issue Listing |
| Summary: | accessing an LDAP address book omits entries without an email address | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Base | Reporter: | goc <a_geek> |
| Component: | code | Assignee: | AOO issues mailing list <issues> |
| Status: | CLOSED OBSOLETE | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | Trivial | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | issues, jr, oooforum, openoffice |
| Version: | OOo 1.0.3 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Linux, all | ||
| Issue Type: | ENHANCEMENT | Latest Confirmation in: | --- |
| Developer Difficulty: | --- | ||
| Issue Depends on: | |||
| Issue Blocks: | 17159 | ||
|
Description
goc
2003-05-26 09:13:24 UTC
*** Issue 14889 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** reassigning to owner of address book code, confirming, targeting correcting sub component (see http://www.openoffice.org/issues/describecomponents.cgi?component=database%20access, please) changing issue type to "enhancement" - the current behaviour is by intention, though maybe worth being discussed Sean, I am not sure how to handle this. Maybe we should really use an objectClass=* - don't know at the moment if we would have some drawback from this. We should perhaps discuss this in the 2.0-time-frame. I would like to have this function as well, I'm having problem on this. Thank You mass re-assign of address book integration issues Any good news to implement this for OSS 1.1 ? no, sorry. 1.1 is definately out of reach for this kind of feature. Why Not? Just remove the code that specify on query that need the email and "TATA", Things done. Isn't that an easy jobs? Well, I don't know more about OSS Code and I didn't really read all that but I think that is always possible. I think Just one line of code (add/remove) Yes, and fixes which include one line of code usually have side effects which you struggle with months later, and which cost you much more time than doing it right in the first place. If you're a developer, then you should know this, if not, then please simply believe me :). Besides this, we are far enough to not include such changes into the 1.1 branch anymore. Only major regressions/bugs/data-losses or such have chances at the moment. Can we make it a patch/addon to 1.1 somehow? Or maybe a dll replacement? by replacing the old .dll or .so will not affect the main brunch but will also make this happen :) Thank You I don't know plans for possible future 1.x versions, such as 1.2. Normally, a change like this will not make it into a 1.1-branch anymore - it's not serious enough. Since every change to a stable version (and 1.1 is near to beeing released, as the release candidates suggest) bears a certain risk, only serious bugs (Usually P2 and P1, if at all) will be fixed on such a branch which already is stable. So I fear there won't be an official patch for 1.1 which incorporates a fix for this. The more as the risks of a fix for this bug here have not even been evaluated. How about some unofficial patch/fix :) :) well, the first pre-requisite would be that there is a patch at all, which currently isn't the case. Second, in general this would be possible. Whether it's possible for a particular case also depends on the demand. It's simply that every non-standard extension requires additional efforts, e.g. to later decide which version a user is working with when reporting a problem (s/he may not even know anymore that 3 months ago, a friend installed "unofficial patch no 25"). Additionally, if, by chance, the same library which is patched is also patched with the official 1.1.1, then we would need two "unofficial patches": one for 1.1, and one for 1.1.1. Else, somebody could apply the unofficial patch for 1.1 to a 1.1.1, and this way revert some fixes which came into 1.1.1, making a 1.1.0.x version. Do you see the dilemma? responsibilities changed change subcomponent to 'none' Migrate to a new account for security reasons. . working transfer Reset assigne to the default "issues@openoffice.apache.org". AOO needs a new LDAP driver: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124987 |