Re: LDAP C API: ber_* error handling

[Mark Smith <mcs@netscape.com>]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> ...
> > Or, how about a version of ber_scanf() that returns an error separately than
> > the tag:
> 
> If we change the semantics of the API call, yes, the call name should change.

I strongly agree with the above statement.


> ...
> Another approach would be to provide a routine similiar to ldap_get_option(),
> say ber_get_option(), to obtain an error code which could be hidden in
> the BerElement.  OpenLDAP is currently implementing this approach as it
> doesn't require large amount of change to existing code.

This sounds okay, although I'd rather move to a model where error codes
are returned directly as I think that is simpler for everyone (backwards
compatibility issues aside of course).  Note that the Netscape/Mozilla
implementation already has a ber_get_option() call but it doesn't expose
error codes.


> ...
> I would not object if we ducked this issue for now (leaving it a later API
> extension).  That is, I'd be happy with a simple clarification.
>         ber_* routines only indicate an error has occurred.  This specification
>         does not define a mechanism to obtain detail information about the error.
>         Implementations of this API SHOULD provide such a mechanism.

Okay with me, but I think we should agree on the error reporting
mechanism very soon as this is a big deal in some environments.

Other opinions?  Should we address this issue now?

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