RE: Integrating Paged control into the search method

[Mark W. <mew...@un...>]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Allen, Robbie wrote:

> > From: Mark Wilcox [mailto:mew...@un...]
> > 
> > It should be integrated into the search method via a control as it is
> > now. The purpose of controls is to enxtend or enhance the 
> > functionality of a particular LDAP operation. 
> 
> I don't see the harm in having it as an extra option to the search
> method.  Of course you'd want to keep the traditional control mechanism
> as it is today.  The primary reason why I think this is a good idea is
> because many times, when developing automation processes around a
> directory, you want to be sure to get all objects that match a search,
> not what is imposed by the server limit.

The harm is that it uncssesarily bloats the API. Net::LDAP is a low-level
API, not a higher level API like ADSI or JNDI which it sounds like you
want. And as Graham & I've pointed out, where does it stop?

If you want to get all of the values from a search you must use the tools
LDAP provides, which means control, if your server supports
it. Not all servers support them. And even if they do, it doesn't mean all
searches can use them (e.g. they might be limited to only a particular set
of users). 

If you want to use LDAP, then you must learn the ins and outs, which means
controls. The average joe will either learn controls or they won't. They
are optional and you can still program LDAP successfully without them. 

I think what you really want is a higher-level API than Net::LDAP, which
operates on a pretty low level. The higher-level API would wrap around
NEt::LDAP (or it could also include other directory services), this would
make it similar to ADSI or JNDI. 

That I would support. I just can't add my support to adding built in
controls to Net::LDAP. Now if a particular control was added to all
servers (e.g. the LDAP RFCs were changed to say that all servers MUST
support the VLV or Paged control), then I'd say of course we should make
it integrated because then they literally would be a part of a standard
operation.

But until then, I think the search API is fine. I think we should instead
concentrate on making sure the controls work and documenting the existing
control structure. And perhaps revisit this issue in the future if more
people think it's a good idea.

Mark