Re: Q: LDAP C API: LDAPAPIFeatureInfo.ldapaif_name

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

JR Heisey wrote:
> 
> Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> 
> > > ...
> > > >However it occurs to me that for controls
> > > >the string could be its OID such as "1.2.840.113556.1.4.473".
> > > >Would this be appropriate?
> > >
> > > There are features which aren't controls or extended operations.
> >
> > Right.  Also, I think developers who use the API will demand names
> > anyway.  Humans just prefer names.  I realize there is more overhead in
> > that name conflicts can occur while OID conflicts should not.
> 
> I'm not sure that I agree with this. The OID will likely be
> defined
> in a macro as would a stringized name. Perhaps someone
> sniffing the
> packets would like seeing English names (assuming they speak
> English)
> but someone used to watching packets probably would not be
> too concerned
> about looking for a specific OID value.

I think you and I are talking about two different things here.  LDAPv3
protocol extensions (in the form of server controls and extended
operations) are identified on the wire using OIDs.  This is good.

In the C LDAP API, we have instead made a decision to use textual names
to identify extensions to the API (these are not protocol extensions,
although some API extensions will be created to support protocol
extensions).  I believe this is the right decision for the reason stated
above (that is, developers will demand textual names anyway so we can't
avoid the overhead of managing a textual namespace in the API).

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