Hi Doug,
On Tuesday, 7. May 2013, Doug Wegscheid wrote:
> I don't doubt that, but the question is whether or not the patch is
> palatable...
You may doubt it, but Quanah is right: your dump utility violates the RFC.
in the "Formal Syntax Definition of LDIF" section, RFC 2849 explicitly states
t
>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 pos
Instead, please get the dump utility fixed so that it adheres to the RFC.
I don't have that kind of pull with IBM.
How about writing a script to post-process the output from the dump to
make it compliant?
-Rick
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
>How about writing a script to post-process the output from the dump to
>make it compliant?
That would work. At that point, I'll have parsed the 700M file, so I'll not
need Net::LDAP::LDIF.
>I can understand your point of view, but it will not change my stance.
not
a problem. I'll ask you to think carefully the actual downside of
incorporating the option for relaxing RFC compliance versus the value
of said options to the open source community. What is the real downside?
>What I
On Saturday, 11. May 2013, you wrote:
> >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
Thanks for your time. The lack of response to "purity vs real-world usability"
is disappointing.
>> I'm dealing with 1G+ LDIFs, and the patch *is* cleaner for me, but
>> preprocessing will work.
>When the dump utility is capable of writing to stdout, you can use a pipe.
>This way you will not ne
Hi,
On Saturday, 11. May 2013, Doug Wegscheid wrote:
> Thanks for your time. The lack of response to "purity vs real-world
> usability" is disappointing.
I am sorry you see it that way, but my reason was not only "purity" as you
call it, but long term usability & compatibility.
Your patch would
>Your patch would have scratched your itch, but the burden to keep perl-ldap
>maintainable, understandable & compatible [even for that RFC violation of your
>tool] would be on the maintainer(s).
Understood. I'm not trying to trivialize the job of the maintainer (I've been
there!), but this is a
10 matches
Mail list logo
