Re: namespace, an LDAP shell, and coding practices

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

You are really asking the wrong list for namespace issues. You should
contact mo...@pe.... But adding new top-level is normally
frowed upon.

I would suggest you use Net::LDAP::Shell as a top level and place all
your other code in Net::LDAP::Shell::*

Graham.

On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 12:34:30PM -0500, Luke A. Kanies wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm currently working on an LDAP CLI shell, just something which will
> basically let me walk an ldap tree using 'cd' and 'ls', and couple other
> basic commands, although also hopefully with the ability to edit single
> entries.
> 
> I've actually already got the basic functionality done--I can connect to
> the database, cd around, do listings on branch nodes, that kind of thing.
> 
> I have a couple of questions as to etiquette, though:  It doesn't really
> seem to make sense to put this under Net::LDAP, even though it obviously
> relies quite heavily on Net::LDAP.  I notice that there are no packages
> under just plain "LDAP", so I was thinking of using that namespace.
> 
> If I had an LDAP.pm package at all, it would merely be a few simple,
> useful routines; most of the real work would be done in subpackages.
> At this point, I have: 
>    LDAP
> A couple of useful routines, but I don't really need this.
>    LDAP::Shell
> The package for the interactive shell itself.
>    LDAP::CLI
> For the CLI auth routines (it caches the username, so you don't have to
> keep entering it, like you do with ldapsearch and the like).
>    LDAP::Connect
> Some routines making host connections easier.  Specifically there is a
> routine for connecting to the first live host from a list.
>    LDAP::Config
> A place to store a list of ldap servers and their basic
> configurations. Information I am storing so far is: server list, dn
> (usually null and overridden), password (usually null and overridden),
> description, objectclass to search for by default (usually inetOrgPerson
> or posixAccount), attributes required to create one of those
> objectclasses, and attributes to return by default from that objectlass.
> This is used heavily by the other packages, so you can just type something
> like "ldapsh" and be connected to the default server as your default user,
> with default ssl/nossl settings.
>    LDAP::Desc
> A simple package for storing descriptions of LDAP attributes.  This is
> useful for prompting people for information, either on the CLI or on a web
> page; instead of prompting for 'uid', you can prompt for 'Login ID' or
> whatever.
> 
> So my main question is, does anyone have a problem with me using this
> namespace, or is there already a better namespace to put this under?  I
> can't seem to find an appropriate one, but that doesn't mean it's not
> there.
> 
> And if someone has already done any or all of this, I would love to hear
> about it.  I'm not planning on devoting a ton of time to this, but it's
> something I've wanted for a long time, and I've got enough of a foundation
> of routines that it's not taking me much extra work (I already had
> everything except the LDAP::Shell package done, but that's the package I
> think people would be the most interested in).
> 
> Lastly, I have a few coding questions:
> 
> I am planning on autoloading each command from something like
> LDAP::Shell::Commands, so that I don't take the hit of compiling
> everything at once.  This also makes it easy for anyone to add new
> commands to the shell.  I'm also planning on providing the ability to set
> some kind of search path, so that the package will search other
> directories for commands to load.  Does that sound like an extensible,
> sensible solution, or does someone else have some amazingly obvious or
> great solution for me?
> 
> Also, because I want the commands available in this shell to resemble Unix
> commands, I am using Getopt::Long to parse their options.  It appears that
> Getopt::Long will only look at @ARGV, so I am setting @ARGV = @_ before I
> call the routines.  Is that retarded, and is there a better way to do it?
> 
> I'm mainly writing this for myself, because I'm tired of dealing with GUI
> apps, and it just isn't that hard, but I figure if I do it, I might as
> well make it available.  The reason I want to make it available with this
> many packages is that it relies on a number of packages I've written over
> the years, and they've finally gotten to the point where I really can't do
> much without them.
> 
> Anyway, I'd love to hear feedback.  And BTW Graham, thanks ever so much
> for Net::LDAP!
> 
> Luke Kanies
> 
> -- 
> The Number 1 Sign You Have Nothing to Do at Work...
>    The 4th Division of Paperclips has overrun the Pushpin Infantry
>    and General White-Out has called for a new skirmish.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> No, I will not fix your computer.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf