On Fri, 17 May 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> No, there isn't any OS-specific code in the LDAP section, so the code we
> have is inherently portable. It's only related to how we deal with the
> different LDAP libraries that are available. For rationale, I see the
> DBMs as the proper predecent.
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 01:14:59AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> Somebody remind me why the LDAP compatibility code is in APR-util and not
> APR? APR-util is supposed to be only for inherently portable code.
>
> I'm sure I had something to do with the foul up back when this was first
> done, b
Somebody remind me why the LDAP compatibility code is in APR-util and not
APR? APR-util is supposed to be only for inherently portable code.
I'm sure I had something to do with the foul up back when this was first
done, but it just seems wrong at this point.
--Cliff
---
