>>> On 3/24/2009 at 4:26 AM, in message <[email protected]>, Justin Erenkrantz <[email protected]> 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: >
[x ] Fix the LDAP interface to be a complete/full LDAP abstraction [ ] Remove the LDAP interfaces from APR
