3:57 a.m.
Volker Lendecke wrote:
Hi!
What's the status of those two? They are mentioned in the manpages of
for example Debian Jessie and FreeBSD 11 (maybe from ports?), but the
manpage explicitly says you have to #include <ldap_pvt.h>, which is
not shipped.
What's the reason of them being in ldap_pvt.h? Are they supposed to
change in the future? The function is now more than 10 years old,
without too much change in that decade.
Generally, <ldap.h> was only supposed to export the "official" LDAP API
and
anything that was specific to OpenLDAP's implementation was stashed in
<ldap_pvt.h> as non-standard features. I suppose the distinction is somewhat
meaningless these days since the last LDAP API RFC was only valid for LDAPv2
and a version for LDAPv3 was never approved. At this point, OpenLDAP's API is
the de facto standard. As clumsy as it may be...
Not being able to fully asynchronously connect to a server was my main
reason to start my own little ldap library a few years ago, so I think
this can be useful code :-)
Talk to your distro folks about shipping the files then. The Project's policy
is that we do source releases exclusively, and everything contained in a
source release is intended for end-users to read and use. That is, again, the
point of open source. It would also help if end-users read the scripts in the
test suite and used them as examples of how to setup various configurations.
Thanks, Volker
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
5:10 a.m.
New subject: Status of ldap_init_fd and LDAP_PROTO_EXT?
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:57:28AM +0100, Howard Chu wrote:
Generally, <ldap.h> was only supposed to export the
"official" LDAP API and
anything that was specific to OpenLDAP's implementation was stashed in
<ldap_pvt.h> as non-standard features. I suppose the distinction is somewhat
meaningless these days since the last LDAP API RFC was only valid for LDAPv2
and a version for LDAPv3 was never approved. At this point, OpenLDAP's API
is the de facto standard. As clumsy as it may be...
So I'm getting from this that ldap_pvt.h should be installed and that
you don't plan to change this arbitrarily. "pvt" to me meant
"private". For Samba, if we have a "private" API, we take the liberty
to change this without real notice.
Thanks,
Volker
4:51 a.m.
New subject: Status of ldap_init_fd and LDAP_PROTO_EXT?
Hi,
On 08.05.2017 15:10, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:57:28AM +0100, Howard Chu wrote:
> Generally, <ldap.h> was only supposed to export the "official" LDAP
API and
> anything that was specific to OpenLDAP's implementation was stashed in
> <ldap_pvt.h> as non-standard features. I suppose the distinction is somewhat
> meaningless these days since the last LDAP API RFC was only valid for LDAPv2
> and a version for LDAPv3 was never approved. At this point, OpenLDAP's API
> is the de facto standard. As clumsy as it may be...
So I'm getting from this that ldap_pvt.h should be installed and that
you don't plan to change this arbitrarily. "pvt" to me meant
"private". For Samba, if we have a "private" API, we take the
liberty
to change this without real notice.
Was there any conclusive decision? May be the attached patch could help
to get things moving?
We'd like to use ldap_init_fd() in Samba and if it is OK to use it, may
be moving it to <ldap.h> is a good solution?
--
/ Alexander Bokovoy
9:09 p.m.
New subject: Status of ldap_init_fd and LDAP_PROTO_EXT?
On ma, 05 kesä 2017, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
Hi,
On 08.05.2017 15:10, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:57:28AM +0100, Howard Chu wrote:
> > Generally, <ldap.h> was only supposed to export the "official"
LDAP API and
> > anything that was specific to OpenLDAP's implementation was stashed in
> > <ldap_pvt.h> as non-standard features. I suppose the distinction is
somewhat
> > meaningless these days since the last LDAP API RFC was only valid for LDAPv2
> > and a version for LDAPv3 was never approved. At this point, OpenLDAP's API
> > is the de facto standard. As clumsy as it may be...
>
> So I'm getting from this that ldap_pvt.h should be installed and that
> you don't plan to change this arbitrarily. "pvt" to me meant
> "private". For Samba, if we have a "private" API, we take the
liberty
> to change this without real notice.
Was there any conclusive decision? May be the attached patch could help to
get things moving?
We'd like to use ldap_init_fd() in Samba and if it is OK to use it, may be
moving it to <ldap.h> is a good solution?
A small update -- get back to use
'struct ldap **ldp' in ldap_pvt.h
header instead of 'LDAP **ldp' as that one is not defined in the private
header. Also re-format ldap_init_fd() definition in ldap.h to follow the
rest of the header.
--
/ Alexander Bokovoy
2375
days inactive
2405
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alexander Bokovoy -
Howard Chu -
Volker Lendecke