apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] LDAP extension to apr-util (take 2)
Date Mon, 13 Aug 2001 22:25:19 GMT
On Monday 13 August 2001 13:12, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > There are already multiple LDAP libraries, what are we trying to solve by
> > putting an abstraction layer into APR?  Are we sure that the problem
> > needs to be solved, or are we doing work just to do work?
>
> There are multiple LDAP libraries - which is exactly why the LDAP
> library was abstracted. There is the "standard" way of doing things,
> then there is the "netscape" way of doing things, which has just changed
> again to the "iplanet" way of doing things - then throw in the two
> different ways of doing SSL/TLS (netscape|standard) - linking against an
> LDAP library is a real pain in the ass.

Then this is the only thing that should be in apr_ldap.  If we are trying to
create a wrapper library to abstract out differences in all of the other
LDAP libraries, then I _might_ be able to get behind that.

> Then there is the idea that we don't want to
> connect/bind/query/unbind/disconnect many times per connection (which
> happens if auth_ldap and keepalives are used together) or if auth_ldap
> and the LDAP-proxy backend are used together - thus the caching and
> connection reuse abstraction layer to do this.

None of that stuff belongs in apr-util.  This has nothing to do with portability,
this has to do with attaching LDAP to a web server.  If this is something that
we want to provide as a standard part of Apache, not sure we do (haven't
thought about it much), then it should be a part of the module that attaches
the two together, not a part of the abstraction library.

> At all times the core LDAP library is available should the application
> want to use it. The LDAP layer is an addition to rather than an
> interface to LDAP. The code for the layer was sourced from an existing
> Apache module - auth_ldap, which has been around for quite a while and
> is stable.

If these routines are not meant to be an abstraction layer for all LDAP
libraries, then they do not belong in APR or APR-util.

Again, I really want to understand why we need this to be a part of 
APR-util.

Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------

Mime
View raw message