BTW if you declare your own objectClass 'foo' as Emmanuel recommends there are some subtle advantages to putting an attribute 'bar' into it.  Usually when you do searches you can search with a specific (objectClass=foo) filter as opposed to using filters like (bar=*).  This is nice because usually OC is always indexed while bar may not be so having a special AUXILIARY OC foo will have performance advantages in searches.
 
As you can see you don't want to use this extensibleObject thingy all the time.
 
Alex

 
On 3/31/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
Tony Thompson a écrit :

>On 3/30/07, Tony Thompson < Tony.Thompson@stone-ware.com> wrote:
><snip>
>Alex,
>That does in fact work.  I can use that workaround so I don't have to
>add my own schema extension.  Is that a recommended way to do things in
>the directory?  I guess at this point I am really looking for guidance
>on the "right" way to do things.
>
>
The 'ExtensibleObject' is, as mentionned by Alex, a workaround (sorry
that I didn't mentionned it in my previous mail, it was out of my mind).

It would be better to decalre your own ObjectClass, and to include the
member attribute in it. All your entries will then have to use this
specific ObjectClass. I don't know if this is something you can do, but
at least, you will be in control. Adding ExtensibleObject will allow
your users to add absolutly any attributes to entries, and it can be
dangerous.

Emmanuel