httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Native Win32 mod_auth_ldap + util_ldap
Date Tue, 03 Dec 2002 05:24:54 GMT
Ok... last call for 2.0.44 ...

My understanding of our apr-util library 'thunks' is that we want all
platforms to just 'play nice' and use their built-in support.  We do have
that on WinNT flavors after 4.0, as a download for 4.0 and with some
great effort for 9x LDAP users.  I suspect that our auth_ldap community
isn't huge on the 9x thing in the first place.

So the patches attached let us plug into apr-util and then provide
mod_auth_ldap using the native libraries.  I'll be darned if I'm about
to download three packages (openldap, sasl and regex) just to get
the thing to compile.  I'm not suggesting nobody should - just that
it's unreasonable for a binary maintainer of a platform to chase down
too many nonstandard packages (when some standards are present.)

So ... what say we [apr group] to including one openldap-copyrighted
bit of code [to provide ldap_url_parse() functionality]???  And if the apr
list can bite that one (and perhaps improve it in future iterations for our
pool-schema) ... shall we roll the following into 2.0.44?

I'm cool either way, but I don't plan to start 'experimenting' with the
modules/experimental/mod_auth_ldap before we come to the usual
consensus on how to deal with this platform :-)

Patches attached.


At 05:59 PM 12/1/2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>Attached is the patch for Win32 apr-util support with their build in library.
>It is included by default with Windows 2000 and XP; NT 4.0 users may
>download it for Windows NT from the address; 
>It appears Windows 9x (ME) users have a bit more hassle, but it is available;
>Attached also is the patch for httpd util_ldap and mod_auth_ldap.  Don't
>mind the const'ness warnings just now - since win32 does it's 'own thing'
>regarding what aught to accept const.  [Big surprise.]
>We also do the 'wrong thing' with respect to apr_ldap_url_parse() const'ness
>at the moment.  Needs some thinking through all the way around.
>And of course, a bit of this patch wouldn't be needed if we 'just' hack in
>the replacement ldap_url_parse() fn.  However, I'm very concerned about
>our proliferating namespace conflicts, so I chose another name while I was
>hacking this together.
>Anyway, patch attached, NT/2k/XP users please experiment and provide
>feedback... thanks!
>>From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
>>To: "Apache Portable Runtime Developers" <>
>>Subject: [PATCH] apr-util/ldap cleanups and Native Win32
>>Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 14:04:58 -0800
>>First off, I'm not certain how APU_HAS_LDAP defined/undefined semantics ever
>>made it into our library, but it is most wrong.  We use APR_ as our namespace except
>>internally to apr-util or apr-iconv, and we always use APR_HAS_FOO 1 or 0 as our
>>markers.  This patch deprecates the APU_HAS_LDAP[_FOO] defined/undefined
>>semantics, and replaces all that conf gook with legitimate 0|1 values for APR_HAS
>>flavors of the same.  We should plan to ditch the APU_HAS_foo when we roll out
>>with APR 1.0.
>>So I attacked the ldap using native win32 libraries.  Good news; it almost worked.
>>Bad news; we were missing ldap_url_* api functions.
>>Only one is used in Apache (the most critical one), ldap_url_parse.  Based on OpenLDAP
>>this patch offers replacement support for that function alone.  Until someone hollers
>>support of ldap_url_search* fn's, I didn't see a reason to bloat.
>>Of course, this introduces a really interesting question; with or without compiled-in
>>support, do we want to grok LDAP urls?  I've always been partial to the idea that
>>apr-util exists to extend apr only in RFC-directed quick-fixes, and this is one (2255).
>>Anywho; for your consideration.  If any Win32/ldap hackers want to look at this, and
>>if a NetWare/Unix guru wants to make sure my APU->APR changes made sense,
>>please do!

View raw message