Re: ldap_sasl_bind vs. ldap_sasl_interactive_bind_s

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:27 PM, <masarati(a)aero.polimi.it&gt; wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am still trying to make an sasl bind. Now I use ldap_sasl_bind_s >> with 'CRAM-MD5'. The server sends a 'LDAP_SASL_BIND_IN_PROGRESS' back, >> but as far as I can see the server cred are empty. How do I make the >> next call with ldap_sasl_bind_s? >> >> In the documentation I have seen that the use of ldap_sasl_bind is not >> recommended as client use, instead the ldap_sasl_interactive_bind_s >> should be preferred. Has anyone a working example of how to use this >> method, or some api doc? I have no clue how to set 'flags' the >> LDAP_SASL_INTERACT_PROC, an the 'defaults' params.. > > You first say that you're using ldap_sasl_bind_s(), and then you note > that > ldap_sasl_bind() is not recommended.  Do you realize that despite some > similarities in the name, the two functions are profoundly different? >  By > no means ldap_sasl_bind_s() can return LDAP_SASL_BIND_IN_PROGRESS. Yes, I know that those methods behave differently - as I have read in the docs, I just search for the simplest alternative as possible for ldap_simple_bind, since I have seen that the ldap_simple_bind methods are deprecated. Nevertheless ldap_sasl_bind_s returns LDAP_SASL_BIND_IN_PROGRESS which I understand as a challenge which should be returned back to the server. This one seems to had a similiar issue: http://bit.ly/awT4D4 But I think I have to look at the examples for better understanding - thx for the tip!