python-ldap-dev

FYI: ldaptor

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

HI!

There's a pure Python implementation of the LDAP protocol:

http://twistedmatrix.com/users/tv/ldaptor/

Looks nicely designed!

Maybe it's thread-safe...

Ciao, Michael.

Re: FYI: ldaptor

[Jens V. <je...@zo...>]

hi michael et al,

i was thinking of dropping support for python-ldap < 2.0 in new releases 
of some of my python products. the problem that came to mind was that 
people might be reluctant to switch to the latest python-ldap version 
because the current release name, "2.0.0pre4", makes it sound like it's 
not a finished release. i would be much more comfortable to tell people 
"get python-ldap 2.0.0" instead of "get python-ldap 2.0.0pre4".

here's my question: since we all have been using 2.0.0pre4 very 
successfully (at least i have), would it be too much work to roll a 2.0.0 
release either from 2.0.0pre4 or a later CVS-state?

jens

Re: FYI: ldaptor

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

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> 
> i was thinking of dropping support for python-ldap < 2.0 in new releases 
> of some of my python products. the problem that came to mind was that 
> people might be reluctant to switch to the latest python-ldap version 
> because the current release name, "2.0.0pre4", makes it sound like it's 
> not a finished release.

Indeed it's not finished yet. Hence "pre".

I would be willing to release a "2.0.0pre05" soon.

> here's my question: since we all have been using 2.0.0pre4 very 
> successfully (at least i have), would it be too much work to roll a 
> 2.0.0 release either from 2.0.0pre4 or a later CVS-state?

We did not use 2.0.0pre4 "very successfully". Remember the issues 
with performance fixed in current CVS? Remember open issues with 
libldap_r and thread-locking?

I don't yet have much feedback of tests done with current CVS 
version. I usually don't get much feedback if I ask questions like 
"any objections against removing xyz...".

Ciao, Michael.

Re: FYI: ldaptor

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

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> 
> i was thinking of dropping support for python-ldap < 2.0 in new releases 
> of some of my python products. the problem that came to mind was that 
> people might be reluctant to switch to the latest python-ldap version 
> because the current release name, "2.0.0pre4", makes it sound like it's 
> not a finished release.

BTW: Everybody use 1.10alpha3. How does that sound to you...?

Ciao, Michael.

Re: FYI: ldaptor

[Jens V. <je...@zo...>]

that sounds even worse. however, i was hoping that the "this software is=20=

never at any finished state" from the "olden days" would be over soon :)

veryone has a different philosophy about release frequency, i tend to=20
release more often myself.

jens


On Friday, July 19, 2002, at 10:52 , Michael Str=F6der wrote:

> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> i was thinking of dropping support for python-ldap < 2.0 in new =
releases=20
>> of some of my python products. the problem that came to mind was that=20=

>> people might be reluctant to switch to the latest python-ldap version=20=

>> because the current release name, "2.0.0pre4", makes it sound like =
it's=20
>> not a finished release.
>
> BTW: Everybody use 1.10alpha3. How does that sound to you...?
>
> Ciao, Michael.

release versions (was: FYI: ldaptor)

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

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> that sounds even worse. however, i was hoping that the "this software is 
> never at any finished state" from the "olden days" would be over soon :)

As long as people are requesting new features appearing in 
OpenLDAP all the time but refuse to test thoroughly CVS versions 
on different platforms with different (build) configuration this 
piece of software won't make any significant progress to a 
non-beta release.

> veryone has a different philosophy about release frequency, i tend to 
> release more often myself.

1. This does not say anything about software quality.

2. If you have full control without many users you can do almost 
everything you want. But people will blame me if their old code 
using python-ldap does not work anymore. Well, you did...

The message is:
python-ldap is community work. Progress is reached by at least 
testing it. And yes, despite the impression some of you might have 
my spare time is tight either.

Ciao, Michael.