On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>wrote:
> So, during the conversations we've had here in Amsterdam regarding > combining APR and APR-util (see post from Paul), one of the big > stumbling blocks has been our treatment of the LDAP interfaces via > APR-util. > > The crux of the issue is that it is a 'leaky' abstraction - in that, > APR-util does not currently *fully* wrap the LDAP interfaces - > instead, it is viewed as augmenting the standard LDAP APIs with > treatment for LDAP-SSL, etc, etc. This middle ground doesn't really > suit the APR philiosophy - cf. DBD and DBM interfaces. > > Therefore, the consensus of the folks here is that we should pursue > one of the following courses of action: > > [ ] Fix the LDAP interface to be a complete/full LDAP abstraction > [ ] Remove the LDAP interfaces from APR > any counter-knowledge/opinions on the following? assert(only httpd uses apr LDAP) assert(new open source software assumes OpenLDAP) assert(LDAP support in apr won't increase adoption of apr) assert(LDAP support in apr could make us a party to ugly combinations of LDAP different toolkits in the same address space, which isn't a problem we have addressed in the past) I feel like voting for "Fix the LDAP interface..." but I don't see anybody caring but httpd, and the widespread use of Linux/OpenLDAP for developing the apps in our space has made this an unstrategic problem to solve.
