Re: ldap_rename() (Was: ldap_remove()) in ldapext-ldap-c-api-01

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> ...
> I agree that ldap_modrdn/modrdn_s should be depreciated.
> My recommendation was concerning the new API.
> I believe the new API should have four functions instead of two.
> 
>         ldap_rename()           /* without controls */
>         ldap_rename_s()         /* without controls */
>         ldap_rename_ext()       /* with controls */
>         ldap_rename_ext_s()     /* with controls */
> 
> This would make ldap_rename*() consistent with other ldap operation
> APIs and reduce application programmer confusion.  Implementation
> overhead would be minimal.

I don't really see the value in adding functions that do not accept
controls (it is trivial for the caller to pass NULL).  Consistency is
your main argument I gather, and I agree with your thinking but at this
point the functions specified in the draft are widely implemented and I
am hesitant to change the signatures.

-Mark