Re: Summary of issues with the Java LDAP API and resolutions

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

At 03:38 PM 3/25/01 -0800, Rob Weltman wrote:
>  An application is always free to do its own LDAP URL parsing, and there will undoubtedly always be applications that choose to do so. But all applications that implement their own chasing of referrals do not need to distinguish between explicit URL parameters and implied URL parameters.

The scope defaulting is different for search referrals than for
search continuations.  In a referral, no explicit scope implies
the client should reuse the prior scope.  In a continuation, no
explicit scope implies the client should use a base derived from
the prior base (base->base, one->base, subtree->base).

>As a matter of fact, in the years I've worked with the Java LDAP API and applications that did their own referral processing, I haven't seen a single such case.

You'll find such a case detailed in RFC 2251 examples!

>The effective URL is what matters other than on error, and on error the literal URL is available to present to the user or a log file.

As far as the other issues I note (thread-safe,MUST document),
I have no additional words I think I can offer which might get
my point across to you.  Anyways, I think I many object to
the wording and I'll try to get back to the list with a more
specific suggestion or two.

Kurt