At 11:55 PM 10/18/2005, Ralf Haferkamp wrote: >On Tuesday 18 October 2005 19:10, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: >> At 07:43 AM 10/18/2005, Ralf Haferkamp wrote: >> >Hi, >> > >> >The 2.3 releases don't define LDAP_DEPRECATED anymore. This causes >> > problems with a lot of non-OpenLDAP software and I expect that many >> > users of libldap are not too happy about that especially because >> > the man-pages for many of the non-deprecated function are missing >> > or just refer to the deprecated calls (in fact I wonder why nobody >> > has complained here yet :) ). >> >> Maybe because defining -DLDAP_DEPRECATED in software that uses >> deprecated interfaces is not that big of a deal. >I agree, but it was my understanding that the deprecated functions might >be removed at sometime in the future. Are there any plans to do that?
No plans. We tend to only remove code if and when it fall into disrepair. >> ldap_init: use ldap_initialize(3) instead. Aside from support >> for ldaps:// and ldapi://, ldap_initialize(3), unlike ldap_init(3), >> returns an indication of the nature of any error directly. >> >> ldap_values_free(3): use of character strings for values is >> deprecated as their use is quite bug prone as zero-valued >> octets are legal in many LDAP syntaxes. Note that NUL (U+0000) >> is a Unicode character. Bervals should be used instead (and, >> hence, ldap_value_len_free(3)). >Ok, but according to the C-API, stuff like referralsp (returned by >ldap_parse_result) which is still char** and not Berval should freed >using ldap_values_free. Which (non-deprecated) function should to be >used for this now. I've been using ber_memvfree lately, is that >correct? ldap_memvfree(3) would be a better choice as its in -lldap, but ber_memvfree(3) is equivalent. Kurt
