I kind of agree a bit here. Maybe a simple static method in the 'PwdModifyRequest' class is enough.
Something like: > PwdModifyRequest.send( connection, "cn=User1,ou=system", "secret", > "BetterSecret" ); My 2 cents, Pierre-Arnaud On 1 mai 2013, at 12:25, Radu Creanga <[email protected]> wrote: > -1 for including the pwdModify as part of the connection API and don't care > for the move from extra to core. > > None of you have heard from me before and I'm not sure my vote can count for > anything, but I hope the comments will. > > PwdModify is an extended request that is optional for a directory server - AD > for example does not support it, at least not out of the box. But, by > including it as part of the connection API you're creating the wrong > impression that it is a standard/universal operation such as add, modify, > delete, search, etc. > > Regards, > Radu > > On May 1, 2013 5:08 AM, "Emmanuel Lécharny" <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 5/1/13 10:56 AM, Kiran Ayyagari a écrit : > > ++1 personally I never liked this distinction of core and extra this only > > made the things worse, I don't see > > how some control can be treated as 'belongs to core' and other as 'extra', > > IMHO a very bad move, and > > I would like to get rid of this if possible to make it right > > Well, the extra controls/extended operations are those only ApacheDS > support. As teh LDAP API is supposed to be a common LDAP API, there is > no reason to enforce the usage of our own features for those using the > API to talk to OpenLDAP, AD? or whatever LDAP server. > > This is the reason we have this distinction, and I think it's good to > keep it this way. > For the few classes I mentionned, it does not make sense to have them in > extra - and part of this is my fault, I created the pwdModify classes in > the worng place - > > > > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com >
