On 2/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Author: bnicholes
Date: Tue Feb 20 08:23:19 2007
New Revision: 509629
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=509629
Log:
vote
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS?view=diff&rev=509629&r1=509628&r2=509629
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS Tue Feb 20 08:23:19 2007
@@ -180,3 +180,9 @@
* mod_ldap: Fix the search limit parameter to ldap_search_ext_s()
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=509237
+1: trawick
+ -0: bnicholes - The patch as it stands, could cause unpredictible
+ behavior across SDKs depending on whether or not the SDK
+ has defined LDAP_NO_LIMIT. The behavior of the ldap_search_ext_s()
+ call can be different if the sizelimit parameter is 0 vs -1.
+ At the very least, the patch needs to be revised so that the
+ behavior is common across all SDKs.
Is this correct as far as you know?
. 0 always means no client API limit
. LDAP_NO_LIMIT, when defined, means no client API limit
. when accepted as a parameter, -1 sometimes means some default
(client API default?) and sometimes means unlimited (VERY UNCLEAR TO
ME)
. the search is always limited by the server limit, no matter what is
specified in the client
