Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > Is this the right way to do things? Or should there be a mapping to > > APR_LDAP_* status codes from LDAP_* status codes? > > I'd suggest that we should map the APR_LDAP_* status codes from LDAP_*. > We can do this by allocating an offset. So, just do: > > apr_status_t status = ldap_fn_result_code + APR_LDAP_ERROR_START; > > or something like that. We have that precedent somewhere. How many > numbers would we need? I don't remember how many the LDAP library > defines. -- justin
There are about 100 or so (as a guess).
A potential problem though - apr_error.h is defined in APR. The LDAP_*
error codes are only defined if the LDAP libraries are included in
apr-util.
Would the APR_LDAP_* codes go in APR or APR-util? (they could
practically only go in the second one).
Would the right approach then be to define APR_LDAP_ERROR_START in APR,
and then the actual error codes themselves in APR-util? (in apr_ldap.h,
or something else?).
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
