In 3.0.20a/ldapsam the Usrmgr shows in the all users view the displayName attribute as full name, but in the user properties view the cn attribute. Seems a little bit inconsistent to me, shouldn't be the algorithm to retrieve the full name always the same? Daniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Beschorner Daniel wrote: | In 3.0.20a/ldapsam the Usrmgr shows in the all users | view the displayName attribute as full name, but in the | user properties view the cn attribute. Seems a little | bit inconsistent to me, shouldn't be the algorithm to | retrieve the full name always the same? Is this different from 3.0.20? Or just <3.0.20 versions? And to clarify, you have both the displayName and cn attribute in a user account entry right? cheers, jerry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDS8EeIR7qMdg1EfYRAnecAJ4s/p3mOQ+n8/6BKKgKrcIZe+uZcQCdFO+Y bWDlnw9Fe0T+loPujoPwkWc=ZIyV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| In 3.0.20a/ldapsam the Usrmgr shows in the all users | view the displayName attribute as full name, but in the | user properties view the cn attribute. Seems a little | bit inconsistent to me, shouldn't be the algorithm to | retrieve the full name always the same?> Is this different from 3.0.20? Or just <3.0.20 versions? > And to clarify, you have both the displayName and cn attribute > in a user account entry right?With 3.0.14 it was different, all our users got full names. I didn't try 3.0.20, but can do if necessary. Because of this change I realized how poorly our displayNames are maintained (only 5 of 150 users), in fact since 3.0.20a most users doesn't have a full name any longer in the user list. In user details (and for instance in Windows login information after Ctrl+Alt+Del) they still have. Both entries in Usrmgr claim to have the full name, but they differ.