Re: ldap_modrdn vs. ldap_modrdn2 in ldap-c-api-01.txt

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

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> I just noticed the ldap_modrdn prototype/semantics used in the draft:
>         int ldap_modrdn(LDAP *ld, char* dn, char* newrdn, int deleteoldrdn)
> 
> which matches RFC-1823 BUT differs from existing common API usage of:
>         int ldap_modrdn(LDAP *ld, char* dn, char* newrdn);
> 
> (which generally have an ldap_modrdn2() with the deleteoldrdn argument).
> 
> Given this group's previous API change discussions which tend towards
> "don't break existing implementations," I don't quite understand why
> that argument has not been applied here.

You are right.  This is a bug in the draft.


> I recommend that ldapmodrdn()/ldapmodrdn_s() be replaced U-Mich v3.3
> prototypes/semantics ldap_modrdn()/ldap_modrdn_s/ldap_modrdn2/ldap_modrdn2_s().
> I believe this to consistent with common and historical usage and should not be
> changed without just cause.
> ...

That sounds like the right thing to do to me.  Any objections?

-- 
Mark Smith
Directory Architect / Netscape Communications Corp.
My words are my own, not my employer's.  Got LDAP?