Re: Integrating Paged control into the search method

[Graham B. <gb...@po...>]

I agree

Graham.

On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 04:46:19PM -0500, Mark Wilcox wrote:
> 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.