On 03 Jun 2011, at 5:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
And I am confused with one thing. apr_crypto called out issues
which cause
apr_dbd arg lists to be reevaluated. However, that is not the
complaint with
apr_ldap, but I think you might be conflating them? If the arg
lists to
On 6/6/2011 5:30 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Given that apr_crypto is in the
soon-to-see-light-of-day apr-util v1.4, and we don't want to have APIs change
unnecessarily, apr_crypto needs to be perfected first. That's some backports
and some
polishing away.
Well, exactly. apr_crypto must be
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 17:53 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I am still waiting for your answer to who the other consumers are of
apr_ldap.
I guess this will be hard to say. Do we track everyone that uses APR
APIs? Or did you mean just the open source projects out there?
--
Bojan
On 06/03/2011 05:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/2/2011 5:51 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 02 Jun 2011, at 4:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
And I am confused with one thing. apr_crypto called out issues which cause
apr_dbd arg lists to be reevaluated. However, that is not the
On 02 Jun 2011, at 1:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/1/2011 5:37 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
I see a vote, and no on-list discussion that preceded it. Not only
that, I see a vote on
the dev@apr list proposing an as yet unheard of solution that
concerns a completely
separate project,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 02 Jun 2011, at 1:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/1/2011 5:37 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
I see a vote, and no on-list discussion that preceded it. Not only that,
I see a vote on
the dev@apr list proposing an as
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 02 Jun 2011, at 1:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/1/2011 5:37 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
I see a vote, and no on-list discussion that
On 6/2/2011 6:10 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 02 Jun 2011, at 1:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Justin had brought this to the list from a f2f hackathon for a decision as
this
blocked 2.0 in 2009(!).
So, during the conversations we've had here in Amsterdam regarding combining
APR and
On 6/2/2011 9:09 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
What is the set of APR users which depend on the moderate help
provided by apr-util 1.x for dealing with multiple LDAP toolkit? I
don't know. I doubt that many users are impacted, and the moderate
level of assistance provided by apr-util wasn't the
On 02 Jun 2011, at 4:09 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
What are the critical facts?
LDAP support in APR 2.0:
* there was [almost] no support for preserving the status quo; those
that spoke up wanted either to make it a full API or drop it
** more wanted to drop it
** Graham offered to do the work to
On 02 Jun 2011, at 4:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Graham, I am not, I repeat, not discussing your *contribution* to
the ASF.
I respect the many, many things you have added, and aspects you
improved,
and bugs you have fixed, which includes your patches to ldap.
I have asked repeatedly
On 6/2/2011 5:51 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 02 Jun 2011, at 4:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Graham, I am not, I repeat, not discussing your *contribution* to the ASF.
I respect the many, many things you have added, and aspects you improved,
and bugs you have fixed, which includes your
On 31 May 2011, at 8:48 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Of course it has been discussed, discussed, and discussed again, and
experienced
a complete failure to launch.
Rowe, Trawick, Erenkrantz and Orton voted to drop apr_ldap and give it
over to httpd to maintain if they want it 12 1/2 months
On 6/1/2011 5:37 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
I see a vote, and no on-list discussion that preceded it. Not only that, I
see a vote on
the dev@apr list proposing an as yet unheard of solution that concerns a
completely
separate project, with no discussion having happened on either project.
On 5/30/2011 2:48 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 29 May 2011, at 4:59 PM, wr...@apache.org wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1128885view=rev
Log:
Begin refactoring to prepare for ldap removal
Would it be possible to make an apr-ldap-legacy branch before you do this?
It would
On 31 May 2011, at 4:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
There are no plans for it because there are not three maintainers.
I am
sweeping it to httpd trunk (with ap_ldap prefixes) almost entirely
intact,
where there are some mod_authnz_ldap committers/fans.
Can you point out for me the
On 5/31/2011 1:13 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
We have already agreed that any LDAP abstraction library needs to encapsulate
the whole
API like apr_dbd does, and that each LDAP implementation needs to be a
discrete provider,
just like apr_dbd does. And now you're telling us that no proposal
On 29 May 2011, at 4:59 PM, wr...@apache.org wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1128885view=rev
Log:
Begin refactoring to prepare for ldap removal
Would it be possible to make an apr-ldap-legacy branch before you do
this?
It would suck for end users if a body of code should
18 matches
Mail list logo
