>>> On 2/19/2007 at 9:29 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/15/07, David Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Currently util_ldap.c has a hard coded -1 as the search limit value (meaning >> infinite/no limit) on ldap_search_ext_s() calls. Some platforms cannot >> handle the -1, but need a 0. Linux, zoS (and others) have a LDAP_NO_LIMIT >> value in ldap.h. >> Below is a patch, allows those who have LDAP_NO_LIMIT value to take >> advantage of it, and others to continue using a -1 value. > > patch committed to trunk and proposed for backport 2.2.x > my guess is that -1 is rarely/never the proper value, but that isn't > so easy to confirm; hopefully the symbol is always available in modern > SDK level
The values of 0 and -1 have a different meaning at least in the Novell LDAP SDK. A value of 0 or LDAP_NO_LIMIT specifies that the search truely has no limit to the number of entries that will be returned. A value of -1 or LDAP_DEFAULT_SIZELIMIT specifies that the search should default to the session value or the value that was set in the session by LDAP_OPT_SIZELIMIT. Changing the sizelimit parameter from -1 to LDAP_NO_LIMIT in the calls to ldap_search_ext_s() removes the ability to control the size limit through the session options. In fact the patch that was submitted will cause the ldap_search_ext_s() function to act differently depending on whether the LDAP SDK has defined LDAP_NO_LIMIT or not. I can't confirm this because I haven't been able to find it documented for all SDKs but I would assume that the initial reason for specifying -1 rather than LDAP_NO_LIMIT or LDAP_DEFAULT_SIZELIMIT is because the intention was to make the call to ldap_search_ext_s() defer to the size limit specified in the session. But not all SDKs define LDAP_DEFAULT_SIZELIMIT, therefore -1 was hardcoded. Can those that know the OpenLDAP or Microsoft LDAP SDKs confirm that those SDKs support a -1 or LDAP_DEFAULT_SIZELIMIT? In the meantime, the patch should probably be revised to make sure that all platforms work the same rather than some supporting LDAP_NO_LIMIT and other supporting LDAP_DEFAULT_SIZELIMIT. The preference should be LDAP_DEFAULT_SIZELIMIT (-1). Brad
