[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: [JunkMail] Re: LDAP_DEPRECATED in OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_2
Howard Chu writes:
>> Still I also believe ldap_sasl_bind() is misnamed if it
>> should be used for simple bind from now on.
>
> Quibbling over this function name seems a bit pointless, unless
> someone here is really going to put the energy into drafting a new API
> spec.
My quibble is just that ldap_simple_bind() should be kept.
We can add new functions instead, like the one you suggest:
> typedef struct LDAP_SASL_parms {
> LDAP_CONST char *mechs;
Why plural "mechs"?
> unsigned flags;
Used for what? They don't seem necessary in the BindRequest
definition in the protocol spec.
> LDAP_SASL_INTERACT_PROC *interact;
> void *interactCtx;
How will these be used?
> } LDAP_SASL_parms;
>
> ldap_bind(LDAP *ld, LDAP_CONST char *id, LDAP_CONST char *cred, int
> authmethod,
> LDAPControl **sctrls, LDAPControl **cctrls, void *extra)
Call it ldap_bind_ext() or something, don't reuse an old name.
> If authmethod == LDAP_AUTH_SASL then id/cred are SASL ID and password,
> otherwise they are LDAP DN and password. "extra" is LDAP_SASL_parms *
> for a SASL bind. etc...
How about: Drop authmethod. If extra != NULL, it is SASL.
Otherwise it's simple bind.
OTOH, simple bind will soon need an extra argument which says
whether or not to apply SASLprep.
--
Hallvard