Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
So, during the conversations we've had here in Amsterdam regarding combining APR and APR-util (see post from Paul), one of the big stumbling blocks has been our treatment of the LDAP interfaces via APR-util.The crux of the issue is that it is a 'leaky' abstraction - in that, APR-util does not currently *fully* wrap the LDAP interfaces - instead, it is viewed as augmenting the standard LDAP APIs with treatment for LDAP-SSL, etc, etc. This middle ground doesn't really suit the APR philiosophy - cf. DBD and DBM interfaces. Therefore, the consensus of the folks here is that we should pursue one of the following courses of action: [ ] Fix the LDAP interface to be a complete/full LDAP abstraction [ ] Remove the LDAP interfaces from APR
This vote is completely premature.What was supposed to happen is that a discussion be kicked off **on the mailing list**, so that people fully understand why the LDAP abstraction is as it is, and in turn people can come up with a properly thought out way forward to address the issues within it.
Development of APR doesn't happen via conversations in Amsterdam. -1. Regards, Graham --
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
