Michael Ströder wrote:
Dagobert Michelsen wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>> Am 08.03.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com>:
>> Dagobert Michelsen wrote:
>>>> Am 19.02.2015 um 18:05 schrieb Howard Chu <hyc(a)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:
>> 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.
I'd also like to see back-sock used as overlay to pipe requests
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.
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/