apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <p...@querna.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] LDAP in APR 2.x?
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:47:25 GMT
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> We've actually discussed this on list for several years, and your comments
>> for years have been 'yea, that's on me, I aught to fix that'.  Now that
>> some folks would like to move forwards towards completing APR 2.0, there
>> will be more of these sorts of votes.
> A far more pragmatic approach to this problem is this:
> "We want to combine apr and apr-util into apr-2.0, but we don't want to go
> to the effort of moving across apr-ldap, because there are moves afoot to
> have this abstraction redone. Can we move everything else, and leave
> apr-ldap in a legacy branch until someone has the time to get this done
> right for apr-2.0?".
> Calling for a vote saying that APR will stop supporting LDAP entirely is not
> a pragmatic approach to this problem.

It will always be in the subversion history.

If its redone and isn't a leaky abstraction, then sure, we can look at
bringing it back, this vote doesn't stop that from happening.

This vote is about what we want to do in the short term, and frankly
the LDAP stuff has staggered around for years, and the split between
mod_ldap and apr-util/ldap has never made sense to me.

Either APR needs to wrap the whole thing, or it shouldn't at all,
where we are today just causes trouble.  It doesn't matter than LDAP
is a standard.  Lots of things are 'standard' APIs, but different
implementations will still manage to mess it up, and I don't see LDAP
as being any different in that regard.

So, again, this is about what we are doing NOW, it doesn't prevent
anyone from coming back to LDAP in the future and doing it 'right',
for whatever value of 'right' it might have.

View raw message