Re: [devel] [PATCH 6 of 7] NTF: Add ntftest test cases for notification, with long dn objects [#873] v2 (Minh Hon Chau)

2014-07-16 Thread minhchau
Hi Praveen, Regarding extended name in AdditionalInfo, I have added the test for it, as in extFillHeaderAddInfo() and extAdditionalInfoTest(). If the app built with extended name and using SaNameT in AdditionalInfo, it certainly knows how the extented name shaping, thus it has to change the way

Re: [devel] [PATCH 6 of 7] NTF: Add ntftest test cases for notification, with long dn objects [#873] v2 (Minh Hon Chau)

2014-07-17 Thread praveen malviya
Hi Minh, I saw the test and the way long DN is being used in the API. I tried to modified that in one way for short DN(below is the patch/diff on top this patch). But I have certain doubts: In case ldap_name is less the 256, it can be set directly using saAisNameLend(),below diff, and ntfsubsc

Re: [devel] [PATCH 6 of 7] NTF: Add ntftest test cases for notification, with long dn objects [#873] v2 (Minh Hon Chau)

2014-07-17 Thread Anders Bjornerstedt
Hi Praveen, A few comments below. praveen malviya wrote: > Hi Minh, > > I saw the test and the way long DN is being used in the API. > I tried to modified that in one way for short DN(below is the > patch/diff on top this patch). > > But I have certain doubts: > In case ldap_name is less the 256,

Re: [devel] [PATCH 6 of 7] NTF: Add ntftest test cases for notification, with long dn objects [#873] v2 (Minh Hon Chau)

2014-07-17 Thread Anders Bjornerstedt
So to summarize, the only reason the lend/borrow variants exist is to allow optimization of code so that it avoids copying long DNs. Tweo examples of safe cases: 1) You are making a blocking down-call => it is safe to lend to the down-call because the instance that is lended will not be dealloca