thoughts on v3 support

[David L. <dav...@ds...>]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Jeffrey C. Ollie typed thusly:
> > Drop it. Since OpenLDAP 2.0.x is out and seems to be reasonable
> > stable there's no good reason anymore to support outdated APIs. (In
> > the case of Netscape and Novell you even can't download them
> > anymore.)
> I don't know about Netscape, but you can certainly download the Novell
> LDAP libraries.  However, that's orthoginal as to whether we want to
> keep support for other libraries.

some thoughts

1) it is possible to ditch all c library support and implement ldap
client code in 100% pure python. the problem is that this is WAY too
much effort

2) alternatively, python-ldap could be 'bundled' with a 'preferred' ldapv3
implementation. main problem here is that of choosing one preferred impl
bearing in mind that users will find very good reasons to use other libs

3) of course, i think that the real answer is to get a new 'standard' api
that the various ldapv3 libs are expected to adhere to, then concentrate
on that (with possible support for particular library extensions. )

i couldn't find an LDAPv3 rfc that could be used as for specifying the api.
RFC1823 is way out of date now. on the other hand, there is the Java API
for ldapv3...

does anyone know if the v3 libs that are coming out adhere to some
written-down standard api?  should someone here just declare one and
write it down?

comments?

d

PS met up with michael stroder and mirko in Karlsruhe last night.
apart from feeding me concoctions of banana and cherry juice, they tried
to teach me some german.
-- 
David Leonard                           Dav...@ds...
DSTC                                    Room:78-632  Ph:+61 7 336 58358
The University of Queensland            http://www.dstc.edu.au/
QLD 4072  AUSTRALIA                     B73CD65FBEF4C089B79A8EBADF1A932F13EA0FC8

Cassette tapes have an almost unlimited capacity for data.
  - Commodore 64 Programmer's Reference Guide (1983)