On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Only presently available options are available as choices to end this
> now unproductive discussion [any heretofore unseen complete abstration
> of ldap cannot be considered with no patches offered]. This vote is
> limited to the scope of the httpd project and expresses a preference,
> there is no technical basis demonstrated to carry a veto.
>
> [ ] Retain ap_ldap API's in httpd 2.3 mod_ldap, as currently in trunk
> (binding mod_ldap to ldap libs)
yes, unless I misunderstood option #3
>
> [ ] Move ap_ldap API's to the core
> (binding both httpd and mod_ldap to ldap libs)
no
> [ ] Move ap_ldap API's to yet another mod_ldaps[1] module
> (binding both mod_ldap and mod_ldaps to ldap libs)
IIUC, the only benefit (and a great one) to yet another ldap shared
library (whether mod_foo or in apr) is if there is a complete
abstraction, such that only one shared library binds to libldap* and
that one shared library can be switched out to switch client libraries
and libldap* symbol use doesn't leak between different functional
areas.
Is there some other possibility?
>
> [ ] Revert to using apr_ldap (restricting mod_ldap to apr-util 1.x [2])
> (binding both apr and mod_ldap to ldap libs)
no
> [ ] Remove mod_authnz_ldap / mod_ldap from httpd 2.3
no
>
>
> [1] other name suggestions are welcome
> [2] vote thread removing ldap from apr-2.x;
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/201004.mbox/%3C4BD46614.6010503@rowe-clan.net%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/201005.mbox/%3CAANLkTinKzmDYbxo2VggZLOxPY72mH0OReK-kUeSGJSa3@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
|