Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
Howard Chu writes:
> So, what do folks think about reviving libldif as an exported piece of the
Exporting LDIF parsing sounds fine. Hopefully compatible with existing
libldifs (mozldap libldif and maybe very-old openldap libldif), though I
haven't looked at either yet.
The original patch I proposed in
Enhancements?id=6194;selectid=6194 is roughly compatible with mozldap.
I can't decide what I think about dependencies. The way OpenLDAP libs
are split up in liblber and libldap is geting in the way, as usual.
For an app without LDAP/networking, it can be annoying to have to drag
in libldap and via that OpenSSL, SASL, which can drag in Berkeley DB,
and I don't know what else, just to parse LDIF files. When they're all
already installed I suppose it rarely matters much nowadays, but it may
be a different story for maintaining/downloading precompiled packages.
> From: hyc(a)symas.com
> rmeggins(a)redhat.com wrote:
>> I think this could be accomplished in one of two ways:
>> 1) Just have libldif return lists of struct berval* for the various data
>> parsed. The caller would be responsible for turning these into LDAPMod
>> or LDAPControl structures - the advantage is that libldif doesn't have
>> to know about any of these higher level structures
That sounds nice in making libldif almost standalone - needs only
liblber. For that matter, if someone wants to get rid of that we
could provide hooks for allocation and log functions.
>> 2) Have libldif create LDAPMod and LDAPControl - I think this could be
>> accomplished by having ldif.c #include<ldap.h> to pull in the
>> definitions of LDAPMod and LDAPControl - would this be ok?
Does this need libldap? Or will it be sufficient to tell the user
that he should use ldap_controls_free() or functions he can copy&paste
from libldap, so he can avoid libldap if he really wants to?
I would prefer this approach - it would be most convenient to have the
LDIF parsed into LDAPMod and LDAPControl structures - for those (very
few?) apps that will want to use libldif standalone, it's easy to free
LDAPMod and LDAPControl structure data.
> Let's move this discussion to the openldap-devel mailing list. I'm
> thinking (2) is OK but I'd like to hear from other developers /
> potential users of this library.