Re: ldap_passwd.diff

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

Timur Izhbulatov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:47:05PM +0200, Michael Str=F6der wrote:
>=20
>>1. As long as returning a server-generated password is not implemented
>>it does not make sense to make newpw optional and/or accept None as val=
ue.
>=20
> Agree. I just blindly followed the RFC.

If we can't make newpw an optional key-word argument we also can't make
user and oldpw to optional key-word arguments.

>>2. Personally I'd like avoid to turn arguments user,oldpw,newpw of
>>passwd() into optional key-word arguments (and we can't do that for onl=
y
>>user and oldpw, see 1.). I'd rather prefer the application developer to
>>really know what he's doing. But I'm open to other opinions.
>=20
> In this case the application developer won't be able to do some importa=
nt
> things. For example, changing other users's passwords will be impossibl=
e even if
> tha application is bound with root DN.

The developer could simply pass value None to passwd() for user and oldpw=
.

Ciao, Michael.