Hi, On Saturday, 11. May 2013, Doug Wegscheid wrote: > >You may doubt it, but Quanah is right: your dump utility violates the RFC. > > please reread my earlier message: I do NOT doubt it violates the RFC (I > know it does!). I'm sorry if a misread of what I wrote caused everyone to > get the idea that I wasn't listening or understood Qaunah's email, and > possibly caused a lack of sympathy for the situation I'm in and a lack of > willingness to listen to my position... > > >I do not think that adding an option to accept this type of RFC violation > >is the way to go, as it would be a precedent for further RFC-violations > >(even if they were hidden behind options). > >This way lies madness (or option hell). > > I'm not asking the maintainer to make a change that causes Net::LDAP to > create anything that violates an RFC (I would absolutely agree with not > going that direction). I am asking for a small change to be made to allow > Net::LDAP to READ something that is in common use, but violates the RFC. > Whether or not we like it, or if it violates our sense of purity, the use > cases for dealing with software that does not follow standards is real, > and sadly common. The model of "being strict on output, but allowing input > of common violations" is not unheard of in these cases, and is useful in > the real world. > > There is a middle road between strict adherance to the RFCs and allowing > anarchy, and "liberal on input, strict on output" seems to be a pretty > reasonable middle road. It allows Net::LDIF to be useful for more real > world problems. > > I am asking everyone to think about that and see if it makes sense.
I can understand your point of view, but it will not change my stance. What I can offer you as some kind of consolation is an idea about a simple preprocessor that filters out the illegal "control:" lines perl -i -p -0040 -e 's/\n //' < RFC-VIOLATING-FILE \ | grep -vi ^control: > RFC-CONFORMING-FILE [the first command is required to unwrap the wrapped lines] Alternatively you may add a changetype: add line after each unwrapped dn: line. > >Instead, please get the dump utility fixed so that it adheres to the RFC. > > I don't have that kind of pull with IBM. Please at least report it to them as a bug in their tool (even if they might not react). Maybe they are not even aware of the issue. Best Peter -- Peter Marschall pe...@adpm.de
