[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: openldap-2.1.16: what happened to cache.c?

On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 06:59:47PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> Well, as I noted before, option (b) is problematic as that
> would require applications which avoided the experimental
> code to be rebuilt in order pick up important bug fixes
> to non-experimental code.

Good point. Did not read that mail, I lost my hard drive a few
days before, therefore the mail of a few days has gone by unnoticed.

> And I think (a) is bad as code is broken and, to date, no
> one has demonstrated any desire to fix the broken code.  (If
> someone actually provided patches which fix the broken code,
> then (a) would obviously be reasonable option.)
> So, I'd suggest another option, include the shell functions
> in the next 2.1 "incremental" release (but not 2.2, our next
> "full" release) which were previously provided when caching
> was not enabled.  This will resolve the linking issues without
> reintroducing broken code, but does nothing to fix the broken
> applications which expected caching to be enabled by default.

So you will introduce replacement functions that simulate the
removed functions for broken application? That sounds great. 

Regarding the broken code: May I suggest adding a warning message
to those functions that every app using them informs the user
that it has to be fixed by printing something like

  WARNING: Call to obsolete function ldap_enable_cache. 

Perhaps with the possibility to switch it on/off using an environment
variable. Otherwise people might not notice that their app will break



Attachment: pgp5ydweUHont.pgp
Description: PGP signature