Read tree name via LDAP

[rrawson]

Tried to Read rootDSE through IDVault object, which should publish this,
but no luck, although I can make the query (send a DN of " ") and
request to read directoryTreeName LDAP trace looks good but it does not
return a response. Anyone have a trick for reading the tree name via an
IDVault call?

thanx
Rob


--
rrawson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rrawson's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=403
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=53875

[Anonymous_User]

rrawson,

It appears that in the past few days you have not received a response to your
posting. That concerns us, and has triggered this automated reply.

Has your issue been resolved? If not, you might try one of the following options:

- Visit http://www.netiq.com/support and search the knowledgebase and/or check all
the other support options available.
- You could also try posting your message again. Make sure it is posted in the
correct newsgroup. (http://forums.netiq.com)

Be sure to read the forum FAQ about what to expect in the way of responses:
http://forums.netiq.com/faq.php

If this is a reply to a duplicate posting, please ignore and accept our apologies
and rest assured we will issue a stern reprimand to our posting bot.

Good luck!

Your NetIQ Forums Team
http://forums.netiq.com

[joakim_ganse1]

Nope,

But it should be possible to expose the dirxml.auto.treename gcv and
read that.


--
joakim_ganse
------------------------------------------------------------------------
joakim_ganse's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=159
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=53875

[geoffc]

On 8/6/2015 5:04 AM, joakim ganse wrote:
>
> Nope,
>
> But it should be possible to expose the dirxml.auto.treename gcv and
> read that.

UA does not read the Auto GCV's properly. So nope. I agree, that should
have worked, but UA does not do it the way I would expect.

[joakim_ganse1]

Enhancement or bug?


--
joakim_ganse
------------------------------------------------------------------------
joakim_ganse's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=159
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=53875

[geoffc]

On 8/6/2015 11:04 AM, joakim ganse wrote:
>
> Enhancement or bug?

Bug. If you support GCV's, you support GCV's or you do not. It is not
an enhancement to do what you are supposed to do.

[Anonymous_User]

On 08/06/2015 12:23 PM, Geoffrey Carman wrote:
> On 8/6/2015 11:04 AM, joakim ganse wrote:
>>
>> Enhancement or bug?
>
> Bug. If you support GCV's, you support GCV's or you do not. It is not
> an enhancement to do what you are supposed to do.
>
>
Greetings,
Unless I am not understanding this correctly, it would be an
Enhancement request that you could enter into RMS. I am pretty sure
there was information in the documentation that stated the WF engine
only supports GCVs that are added to the UAD or the DriverSet.


--

Sincerely,
Steven Williams
Lead Software Engineer
Micro Focus

[geoffc]

On 8/9/2015 11:06 AM, Steven Williams wrote:
> On 08/06/2015 12:23 PM, Geoffrey Carman wrote:
>> On 8/6/2015 11:04 AM, joakim ganse wrote:
>>>
>>> Enhancement or bug?
>>
>> Bug. If you support GCV's, you support GCV's or you do not. It is not
>> an enhancement to do what you are supposed to do.
>>
>>
> Greetings,
> Unless I am not understanding this correctly, it would be an
> Enhancement request that you could enter into RMS. I am pretty sure
> there was information in the documentation that stated the WF engine
> only supports GCVs that are added to the UAD or the DriverSet.

But there are automatic GCV's available on all drivers. We quibble
about the notion of 'added' vs 'on'. I say if the driver supports them,
then the UAD driver should be supporting them for use in AD.