You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu> on 2002/05/18 07:14:59 UTC
apr-util and LDAP
Somebody remind me why the LDAP compatibility code is in APR-util and not
APR? APR-util is supposed to be only for inherently portable code.
I'm sure I had something to do with the foul up back when this was first
done, but it just seems wrong at this point.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: apr-util and LDAP
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> No, there isn't any OS-specific code in the LDAP section, so the code we
> have is inherently portable. It's only related to how we deal with the
> different LDAP libraries that are available. For rationale, I see the
> DBMs as the proper predecent.
Hmmmmm... I suppose that's a valid argument. Okay.
--Cliff
Re: apr-util and LDAP
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 01:14:59AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> Somebody remind me why the LDAP compatibility code is in APR-util and not
> APR? APR-util is supposed to be only for inherently portable code.
>
> I'm sure I had something to do with the foul up back when this was first
> done, but it just seems wrong at this point.
No, there isn't any OS-specific code in the LDAP section, so the
code we have is inherently portable.
It's only related to how we deal with the different LDAP libraries
that are available. For rationale, I see the DBMs as the proper
predecent.
Now, whether we should remove LDAP support is another issue entirely.
I think it's worthwhile to have at some point in the future even if
httpd-ldap is the only one using it right now. -- justin