On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >> Of course not, that's why I posted. >> >> The clear consensus here in the room is that the current approach to >> LDAP is broken and ill thought-out (for the reasons I illuminated), >> but what there isn't consensus on is how to proceed. Hence, the >> discussion on-list about how to proceed. -- justin > > Votes follow the discussion, they don't precede it.
They can start one, witness this thread. When there is a general idea that consensus is around the corner, but to not just do it, I think it's perfectly valid to open like this. > What is clear is that there is a wide lack of understanding of how the IETF > draft LDAP C API works, and before people can suggest possible solutions, > first everyone needs to fully understand the problem they are trying to > solve. This is about how technology X (read: LDAP) is wrapped in apr-util, not about how LDAP works or what problems it addresses. Cheers, Sander > Regards, > Graham > -- >
