Return-Path: 
 <users-return-4450-apmail-directory-users-archive=directory.apache.org@directory.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-directory-users-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-directory-users-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CD4D89865
	for <apmail-directory-users-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:19:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 78324 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2012 12:19:41 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-directory-users-archive@directory.apache.org
Received: (qmail 78298 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2012 12:19:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@directory.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@directory.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@directory.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.directory.apache.org>
Reply-To: users@directory.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list users@directory.apache.org
Received: (qmail 78288 invoked by uid 99); 17 Feb 2012 12:19:41 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:19:41 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.214.50] (HELO mail-bk0-f50.google.com) (209.85.214.50)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:19:35 +0000
Received: by bkty15 with SMTP id y15so3849286bkt.37
        for <users@directory.apache.org>;
 Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:19:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=gTdzGevhdM+JVTalRv8w0zKUJp6+zSuunfyVz/ygbls=;
        b=GlXoaLrby9EwuqfXOpaLR3HATo3DbLqUKi0afm6LgVpjZW/+kKOTvGNDpQLrol1RaX
         FKdmrJHdIga+8Hbna8O5D8t9LpuetmdrE8GdTnrTdTGtQJ6Kbd92+UoQTnmQselmTpS0
         iObNRdpdbmkqZ3V4K6wKV+v/1RUOSOzisEH2c=
Received: by 10.205.139.71 with SMTP id iv7mr3985488bkc.67.1329481153824;
        Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:19:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Emmanuels-MacBook-Pro.local
 (lon92-10-78-226-4-211.fbx.proxad.net. [78.226.4.211])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
 jd17sm22605148bkb.4.2012.02.17.04.19.12
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:19:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F3E45BF.6020709@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:19:11 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?RW1tYW51ZWwgTMOpY2hhcm55?= <elecharny@gmail.com>
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@directory.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cannot execute stored procedure or how to enable stored
 procedures
References: <op.v9tn1h069rdhzt@vitali-06a7f357>
In-Reply-To: <op.v9tn1h069rdhzt@vitali-06a7f357>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Le 2/17/12 1:09 PM, Vitali Baumtrok a écrit :
> Hello guys,

Hi,
>
> I'm having some trouble with executing a stored procedure.
>
> System:
> WindowsXP
> ApacheDS 2.0.0-M5
> Apache LDAP API 1.0.0-M10
> jdk 7

Thanks for the infos.

So, yes, there is an issue as we are trying to get OSGi being used in 
this milestone, and the extendedOperation are loaded using a property in 
2.0.0-M5.

You will have to start the server adding a 
-Ddefault.extendedOperation.requests=<the list of ExtendedRequest 
classes> and -Ddefault.extendedOperation.responses=<the list of 
ExtendedResponse classes>

In your case, StoredProcedureRequest and StoredProcedureResponse.

Test that, and please fill a JIRA to be sure we fix this issue.

Note that this feature is currently highly experimental, and that we are 
working on Milestones, so it's likely to be a moving target for quite a 
while.

It worked probably better in some previous 2.0 milestones.

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com