Michael Ströder wrote:
Dagobert Michelsen wrote:
Hi Michael,
Am 08.03.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Michael Ströder michael@stroeder.com:
Dagobert Michelsen wrote:
Am 19.02.2015 um 18:05 schrieb Howard Chu hyc@symas.com:
Dagobert Michelsen wrote:
I have made some enhancements to back-sock to use JSON for the passed data and JSON-RPC to map LDAP calls to method invocations.
my initial reaction: the current format is just a tweaked LDIF. LDIF itself is still a more compact format than JSON. I personally am opposed to adding any JSON dependencies to our code base. Anyone else have an opinion?
Well, of course you are right that the LDAP presentation is more efficient. However I think from a client perspective it would be easier not to deal with LDIF, especially as you can choose a JSON-RPC server suitable for your needs and have the data already available for the function and concentrate on implementing the functionality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON-RPC#Implementations
You assume that many people want to do JSON-RPC. IMHO that's only your specific need. And it shouldn't be too hard for you to write an external generic back-sock listener which translates this custom LDIF to JSON and provide it as separate open source project.
I would happily do that, however I need some extra fields to be passed.
It seems we're getting to the interesting part.
Indeed.
I'd also like to see back-sock used as overlay to pipe requests and responses through an external process.
It already works as an overlay.
E.g. I'd like to rewrite filters based on authz-DN or similar but let slapd itself process the (modified) request.
Sounds like you two could start enumerating all of the parameters you would like to see added for each operation type. A final list should be submitted to the ITS as an enhancement request. Patches adding such params would be even better.