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 complaint with > apr_ldap, but I think you might be conflating them? If the arg lists to > apr_ldap were an issue, I would have simply proposed the corrections. > > apr_ldap's issue is that it is an incomplete interface. It is useless > without intimate knowledge and use of the system LDAP provider, per the > standard ldap API. Therefore, whomever consumes apr_ldap must ***also*** > consume the system/toolkit ldap support, and that which apr was built > against, to be specific. > > I guess the point is that he wants to redesign the complete apr_ldap API to solve the incompleteness issue. But he wants the API design to be correct in the first shot. Hence he is waiting until apr_crypto and apr_dbd are in its final form to have a blueprint for the new apr_ldap API to prevent the same "mistakes" with this new API that were / are in apr_crypto / apr_dbd. Regards Rüdiger
