[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: (ITS#4269) ldapsearch no LDIF wrap option
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 5:23 PM
> To: Mike Patnode
> Cc: openldap-its@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: RE: (ITS#4269) ldapsearch no LDIF wrap option
> At 04:07 PM 12/20/2005, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
> >> At 06:45 AM 12/20/2005, email@example.com wrote:
> >> >> The Netscape version could optionally turn off LDIF wrap.
> >> Handy for
> >> >> scripting and pipes etc. I'm surprised no one has ever
> done this
> >> >> before. Is there a religious movement against it?
> >> >
> >> >It's so trivial to workout otherwise that it does not deserve the
> >> >coding effort.
> >> Personally, I rather spend my time making other programs properly
> >> accepting conformant LDIF, including line wraps, than to modifying
> >> OpenLDAP Software to produce non-compliant LDIF files
> (note that some
> >> line wrapping is required by the open standard).
> >OK, then why add the integer option?
> Note that my -r 0 suggestion was in response to Ando's
> suggestion that ldapsearch handle -r with an optional integer. Due to
> getopt(3) restrictions, if there is an integer to be expected
> with the flag, it cannot be optional. That is, it has to be
> getopt(argc,argv,"r" ...) or getopt(argc,argv,"r:" ...).
> >> >> Diffs attached for ldapsearch -r (turn off line wrap)
> >> >
> >> >I suggest making the -r switch accept an optional arg
> that specifies
> >> >the wrap column, defaulting to LDIF_LINE_WIDTH; so
> >> >
> >> >(nothing) means wrap at column LDIF_LINE_WIDTH
> >> >
> >> >-r alone means don't wrap at all
> >> -r 0 instead.
> >> >-r <positive integer> means wrap at given column
> >Is -r 3 really an interesting option, or is it just
> code/feature bloat?
> Some would argue that adding a no-line-wrap option to
> ldapsearch(1) is just code/feature bloat as, in general, any
> program purporting to accept LDIF input (or output of
> ldapsearch(1)) is generally expected to handle LDIF,
> including line wraps.
> >Either you live in an LDIF conformant world and you want the
> >wrap, or you're trying to write a one line script, and you'd
> rather not
> >deal with it.
> Well, if I was writing a one line script, I'd rather that
> script (still only one line) properly handle LDIF line wraps
> than to waste my time and others with getting users and
> programs, not just ldapsearch(1), to produce output without
> standard line-wraps.
> >Is there really an interesting in-between usage case?
> If a user say wants to view ldapsearch(1) output on a
> terminal of width 50, I would think having the capability to
> wrap at 50 would be useful to that user.
Or they could just use -r, and let the terminal wrap the lines. :)
Anyone ever actually ask for it?
My vote would be kill it if you want to be pure, or just do the -r with