Re: ANNC and query: ldapmodule-1.10a3-patched RPMs available

[Michael <mi...@st...>]

David Leonard wrote:
> 
> i feel its important to discuss how you'd like to see yourself interacting
> with ldap through python.

Yes!

<rant>

What makes me angry is that most people just complain about
python-ldap being abandonware because it cannot be linked against
OpenLDAP 2 libs. That's definitely not enough! You can write a lot
of standard LDAP applications with python-ldap by reading the
_ldap.pdf carefully. Most of you wouldn't need more. python-ldap
does not do your homework nor cook your coffee off course.

People should really list the particular defecencies they
*personally* experienced. I can easily list a few *I* experienced
(as I already did - see the list archive). But I would like to know
what others have as requirements and discuss them in detail.

On the other side all people are free to come up with their own
home-grown modules and see how they fit into this project. Some
people did and I appreciate this although I might have a different
opinion. But note: getting something to a maturity you all are
expecting from python-ldap is much work (maintaining, support,
documentation) - a quick hack/patch will not do.

</rant>

> there have been some past emails containing my
> suggestions and fog has some work towards a high level X.500 interface
> for python.

I could also release some higher-level modules (e.g. ldapsession
found in web2ldap) with a more relaxed license. But people have to
be willing to at least test them. There's not much feedback on this
list. Just complaints.

> on the other hand, just getting something to work with openldap2 via swig
> would make progress and maybe that's all that you and other people
> really need?

If there's not a requirement list which features of OpenLDAP 2
people really need this will just produce a quick hack/patch of not
much use. And if the producer looses interest it's not maintained.

Ciao, Michael.