Re: LDAP C API: error handling

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>]

At 11:09 AM 6/21/99 -0500, Mark Wahl wrote:
>
>> The second option is equivalent to "implementation specific".
>
>I don't agree - the issue is not what the API provider does, but what an API
>consumer can use.

Okay, which is THE operating system reporting mechanism an API
consumer can use to obtain an indication of the ldap_open() failure
on a particular operating system?

>Can useful LDAP clients be built that do not require
>implementation-specific services?  If so, then we can standardize those
>aspects now, and sort out the rest later on with an additional standards-track
>documents for the 'advanced API error reporting service extension'.

I agree that we address error handling later.  I just don't
see how saying "operating system specific" is any different
than saying "implementation specific."  If you prefer, 
"operating system specific" that fine...  implementations
are free to choose the specifics of their "operating system"
which allows them to use any of the available reporting
mechanism...