RE: Calling conventions

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

The OpenLDAP implementation supports a number of auto
optioning mechanisms which allow applications to use
user/site specifics defaults (.ldaprc/ldap.conf/session
handle).  These mechanisms do not interfer with applications
designed to the LDAPext API spec, but will likely limit an
application portability to implementations with these
extensions.  We will likely document the API for these
mechanisms as an "optional" extension to the core
API.

The clients/tool collection demonstrate how applications
can use these mechanisms.

Kurt


At 02:35 PM 1/20/00 -0700, Steve Sonntag wrote: 
>>>>
I was just looking at ldap_search_ext code and noticed that the
behavior of sizelimit does not match the IETF ldap c-api-draft-04.
  
To quote the draft:
  
1641 For the ldap_search_ext() and ldap_search_ext_s() calls,
1642 this is a limit on the number of entries to return from the
1643 search.  A value of LDAP_NO_LIMIT (0) means no limit.
  
1670 Note that the
1671 value from the session handle is ignored when using the
1672 ldap_search_ext() or ldap_search_ext_s() functions.
  
Yet the code in search.c function ldap_build_search_req
does the following:
  
   (sizelimit < 0) ? ld->ld_sizelimit : sizelimit,
i.e. gets the value from the session handle when -1 is passed
for the sizelimit.
  
My question is: is the code going to stay this way, or be modified 
to follow the draft?  Personally I like the bahavior that -1 causes the
value from the session handle to be used, but then my opinon doesn't
count for much.
  
-Steve Sonntag
  
  
------------------------
Steve Sonntag
Novell Directory Services
+1 801 861 7097

<<<<