On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > Only presently available options are available as choices to end this > now unproductive discussion [any heretofore unseen complete abstration > of ldap cannot be considered with no patches offered]. This vote is > limited to the scope of the httpd project and expresses a preference, > there is no technical basis demonstrated to carry a veto. > > [ ] Retain ap_ldap API's in httpd 2.3 mod_ldap, as currently in trunk > (binding mod_ldap to ldap libs)
yes, unless I misunderstood option #3 > > [ ] Move ap_ldap API's to the core > (binding both httpd and mod_ldap to ldap libs) no > [ ] Move ap_ldap API's to yet another mod_ldaps[1] module > (binding both mod_ldap and mod_ldaps to ldap libs) IIUC, the only benefit (and a great one) to yet another ldap shared library (whether mod_foo or in apr) is if there is a complete abstraction, such that only one shared library binds to libldap* and that one shared library can be switched out to switch client libraries and libldap* symbol use doesn't leak between different functional areas. Is there some other possibility? > > [ ] Revert to using apr_ldap (restricting mod_ldap to apr-util 1.x [2]) > (binding both apr and mod_ldap to ldap libs) no > [ ] Remove mod_authnz_ldap / mod_ldap from httpd 2.3 no > > > [1] other name suggestions are welcome > [2] vote thread removing ldap from apr-2.x; > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/201004.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/201005.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien...
