apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1128885 - in /apr/apr/trunk: build/apu-conf.m4 build/apu-ldap.m4 configure.in
Date Tue, 31 May 2011 14:34:17 GMT
On 5/30/2011 2:48 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 29 May 2011, at 4:59 PM, wrowe@apache.org wrote:
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1128885&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Begin refactoring to prepare for ldap removal
> Would it be possible to make an apr-ldap-legacy branch before you do this?
> It would suck for end users if a body of code should suddenly disappear, and there was
> nothing to point where it went or what the future plans for it were.

There are no plans for it because there are not three maintainers.  I am
sweeping it to httpd trunk (with ap_ldap prefixes) almost entirely intact,
where there are some mod_authnz_ldap committers/fans.

SVN is a history management schema, so it's easily retrieved by willing
developers, but the API is sufficiently broken that we are very unlikely
to see an acceptable resurrection proposal, as we haven't seen one in
the past six years.  Anyone following trunk to the commit "Remove LDAP
API" and taking r -1 can have a copy, or from the 1.x util tarballs.

If there are fans of httpd ldap interested in multiple ldap providers,
the right answer would be mod_ldap_openldap.so, mod_ldap_netscape.so etc,
not ap_ldap.so stubs.  All would follow mod_ldap semantics, and there
would be no need to load multiple mod_ldap's at a time (it could even be
clever and detect any siblings loaded, and barf intelligibly).

So we can be clear ldap is dropped from apr-2.x, as all of the recent votes
on the subject have indicated, and as you suggest, we need to explicitly
mention that in any beta/release 2.0 announcement.

But these patches you mention, they are simply to ensure that important
parts of apr[util] conf logic don't fall away with the dropping of ldap.

So no, after wasting a week on untangling this mess, I don't see a point
to create new dead branches.

View raw message