Re: other things

[Joe L. <jl...@op...>]

included are ldap/lber swig files (uses swig 1.3a5 or whatever the latest
snapshot is..). They _compile_ against both OpenLDAP 2.0.x and mozilla
ldap sdk 5.0. They only match Sascha's current swig files and do not as
yet address other API needs. It is a work in progress, but I wnated to
post it. You can grap Sasha's swig-ldap package and replace the
ldap/lber.i files (remember to erase *_swap.c!) and then "make" it.

On Fri, 25 May 2001, Michael Str=F6der wrote:

> Joe Little wrote:
> >
> > I do understand that openldap 1.x is being maintained by OpenLDAP, bu=
t the
> > distribution sets no longer maintain such. Thus any software created =
with
> > the hope for inclusion in a distro (like my management software ideas=
)
> > need to be on the current build set.
>
> I disagree. E.g. recent S.u.S.E. Linux 7.1 ships with both libs and
> python-ldap 1.10a3. I think Red Hat does also. Not sure about
> Debian.
>
> Believe me I have exactly the same problems with 1st-level-support
> for web2ldap.
>
> > I'll need to look further into the 2.x thread-safe issues. It would a=
ppear
> > from various notes/code that OpenLDAP 2.0.7 and beyond is now thread-=
safe.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> > I saw your message from before. Is there anything more current that
> > confirms/refutes that?
>
> This message by Kurt Zeilenga was at the time 2.0.7 was already out.
> Please re-read it. Note that there are still significant changes
> with the OpenLDAP 2.0.x releases. You can't stick to 2.0.7 (2.0.11
> was released yesterday).
>
> Regarding re-entrant LDAP libs Kurt mentioned ldap_r which provides
> sort of a re-entrant lib but not without taking special care in the
> LDAP application's C code. It might be a solution to wrap this into
> a low-level API and write a thread-safe wrapper class around it.
>
> > I also DLed the newly minted ldapsdk5.0 for mozilla, and will work on=
 the
> > SWIG stuff there.
>
> According to various messages by Kurt Zeilenga and others this is
> the only thread-safe LDAP lib.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ldap] LDAP C SDK's thread-safe?
> Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 09:08:29 -0400
> From: mc...@ne... (Mark C Smith)
> Organization: iPlanet E-Commerce Solutions
> To: mi...@st...
>
> Just found this in my overflowing inbox... the Netscape/Mozilla SDK
> is
> multithread safe, although in older versions you must write and
> install
> some callback functions to allow for safe sharing of one LDAP *
> session
> handle among multiple threads.  This is documented.
>
> -Mark
> -----------------------------------
>
> > The OpenLDAP 2.x include files give swig indigestion. My
> > current approach to this whole mess is the get a passable swig module=
 for
> > some LDAP v3 library working, and then work with python-ldap (ie you?=
) to
> > build toward a stable solution.
>
> Feel free to send me code for testing. Please mention the SWIG
> version it requires. I have currently installed swig-1.3a5.
>
> > Once we have a working v3 backend to
> > python-ldap, it will be easier to code for the differences in each SD=
K.
> > This is why I DLed the mozilla one, since it was one you felt was mos=
t
> > complete. If we can move on that, we have something to work with.
>
> I'd suggest to write low-level SWIG-wrappers around each LDAP C SDK
> and write a nice Python class API for common use above it. So you
> don't have to deal with the dirty details at the C level. Just wrap
> 1:1 *everything* in libldap and libber and let me do the
> higher-level abstraction.
>
> > At the same time, I'll be using the current python-ldap w/ openldap 2=
.x
> > patches to work on the ZopeLDAP adaptor and that code. I hope to get =
the
> > sdk bit done this weekend, and devote a good week to the Zope code.
>
> I'm pretty sure Jens will catch up quickly and modify the ZopeLDAP
> stuff if there's a new usable API. Leave that part up to him.
>
> > That is where I stand, and I hope its agreeable to you. My hand is
> > "raised" on the maintenance issue, I am still just unsure of how best=
 to
> > tackle the problem.
>
> Since you are able to produce the SWIG wrapper code simply stick to
> that. Leave the Python part to me and the Zope part to Jens. Is that
> clear enough?
>
> Ciao, Michael.
>