Now this I can get behind. On Monday 13 August 2001 13:37, Graham Leggett wrote: > Ryan Bloom wrote: > > Then this is the only thing that should be in apr_ldap. If we are trying > > to create a wrapper library to abstract out differences in all of the > > other LDAP libraries, then I _might_ be able to get behind that. > > Ok. > > > None of that stuff belongs in apr-util. This has nothing to do with > > portability, this has to do with attaching LDAP to a web server. If this > > is something that we want to provide as a standard part of Apache, not > > sure we do (haven't thought about it much), then it should be a part of > > the module that attaches the two together, not a part of the abstraction > > library. > > So this should be part of Apache - now for the next question - should it > be an Apache module, or part of the Apache core? > > > If these routines are not meant to be an abstraction layer for all LDAP > > libraries, then they do not belong in APR or APR-util. > > Ok, I propose this: > > - The linking-to-miriad-of-different-ldap-libraries function, and the > small bit in apr_ldap_compat.c that smooths out differences between > functions in LDAP v2 and v3 should go in APR-util (or APR?). (This patch > is small and easy to review.)
+1 > > - The LDAP connection-reuse / compare cache should be abstracted into > their own module in the Apache tree (under modules/ldap/) that provides > additional LDAP services to modules that need them. +1 Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
